)SF 523 
'.N3 
Copy 1 



Bee~Keepers , 
Legal Rights 



tdfe. 



%? 



National Bee-Keepers" 
Association 



1910 



"II 



u 



BEE-KEEPERS' 

LEGAL RIGHTS 




National Bee-Keepers' 
Association 



Ms 



ABUSE OF U. S, MAIL 



SEC. 496 U. S. LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

(a.) When not liquid or liquefiable, they must be placed in a bag, box 
or removable envelope or wrapping, made of paper, cloth or parchment. 

(b.) Such bag, box, envelope or wrapping must again be placed in a' 
box or tube made of metal or some hard wood, with sliding clasp or screw 
lid. 

(c.) In case of articles liable to break, the inside box, bag, envelope, 
or wrapping must be surrounded by sawdust, cotton or other elastic sub- 
stance. 

When in glass bottles or vials, such bottles or vials must be strong- 
enough to stand the shock of handling in the mails and enclosed in a metal, 
wooden or papiermache block or tube not less than three-sixteenths of an 
inch in the thinnest part, strong enough to support the weight of mails 
piled in bags and resist rough handling; and there must be provided, be- 
tween the bottle and said block or tube, a cushion of cotton, felt or some 
other absorbent, sufficient to protect the glass in handling; the block or 
tube to be impervious to liquids, including oils, and to be inclosed by a 
tight-fitting lid or cover, so adjusted as to make the block or tube water 
tight and to prevent the leakage of the contents in case of breakage of 
the glass. 

Queen bees and their attendant bees, may be sent in the mails when 
properly put up so as not to injure the person of those handling the mail, 
nor soil the mail bags or their contents. 

Never send comb honey by mail, and see that all other packages con- 
form to U. S. Postal I^aws. I have received by mail several broken boxes 
of comb hoeny for inspection. I also find poor queen cages and pack- 
ages with honey sent by mail. 

Tested, laying queens are often injured in the mail, especially when 
in suspended mail bag caught by fast trains from an arm at side of track. 









TO THE CITY BEE 
KEEPER 




There are many keeping bees in the suburbs of cities, whose bees are 
an annoyance to neighbors. 

1. Spotting Clothes. 

This is generally worst the day bees are set out on summer stands. 
Bees go only short distances at that date. It is best not to set the bees 
out on wash days but the day following; by next week the trouble will be 
over. If they must be set out and if it is wash day, go to the neighbor 
who is washing, explain the situation and offer a present of some honey 
or money if they will delay washing one day. 

2. At Watering Places. 

Always provide abundance of water in several places for bees. Shal- 
low wooden dishes with sloping sides, with a slatted board float, is a good 
form of watering dish. Somewhere have some salt, also airslacked lime 
where bees can go to. There is something about it bees like, and it will 
save trouble to supply the bees' demand. If your bees bother a neighbor's 
pump, go and put a piece of chees cloth over the spout and fence the bees 
out as well as furnishing a strainer for the water. Stock tanks are places 
of annoyance. Just above the water line on inside of the tank fasten a 
three-inch strip; it will not bother the stock, and will keep the bees from 
going there. Also see to it that overflow is so arranged as to not make 
a mud hole near the tank. 

3. In the Neighbors' Garden, or Field. 

If your neighbor or his horse are stung by your bees in his garden or 
field, I find it a good plan to donate some honey, at same time ask him 
to do such work on cool days or early mornings. If he is unable to keep 
the ground clean, then some early morning surprise him by taking your 
own horse and cultivate for him up to breakfast. Generally one such act 
will establish such good feelings no farther trouble will arise. I have 
proven it so. 

4. At Grocery Stores and Residences in Fall. 

After the honey season often, bees are a great annoyance at above 
places especially in empty sugar and syrup barrels, and candy shops. Go 
to those places and ask to place the packages where bees can not get to 
them. Go to sugar cane mills and keep the premises cleaned up, and to 
neighbors' kitchens where bees come in and bother while canning fruit, 
and ask them to keep the door and windows screened while at such work. 
Bees do not go where no sweets abound. 

5. In the Highway and Public Places. 

If people or teams are stung in such public places by your bees, it is 
your duty to so locate the bees, or change the surroundings that they do 



4 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

not disturb the public. If damage to person, stock, or property is done, 
by the bees, the owner is liable for damages. And if it continues, may 
become a nuisance. High board fences or high hedges are a great help. 
Even with all possible precaution if bees are near the street, the bees at 
times will bother. Keep out of trouble if possible. Don't get the idea 
that the National Association can win every case. We must keep within 
the law if you want protection. Avoid conflicts, compromise, and live up 
to the Golden Rule. 

N. E. FRANCE, 
General Manager of National Association. 



WHAT THE COURTS SAY IN RELATION TO PROPERTY IN BEES. 



New York Common Law Reports — Wendell, Vol. 12-16 Lawyers' Ed., P. 548 

Kiltz vs. Goff. 
PROPERTY IN BEES— WHEN RECLAIMED— TRESPASS. 

The owner of bees, which have been reclaimed, may bring an action of 
trespass against a person, who cuts down a tree into which the bees have 
entered on the soil of another, destroys the bees and takes the honey. 

Where bees take up their abode in a tree, they belong to the owner of 
the soil, if they are unreclaimed; but if they have been reclaimed, and 
their owner is able to identify his property, they do not belong to the 
owner of the soil, but to him who had the former possession, although he 
cannot enter upon the lands of the other to retake them without subjecting 
himself to an action of trespass. 

Citations— 2 Bl. Com., 393, 418; 2 Kent, Com., 394; 6 Johns, 5; 14 
Johns, 406; 7 Johns, 16; 1 Cow. 243. 

Mr. S. Chapman for Plaintiff in Error. 
Mr. J. A. Seeber, for the Defendant in Error. 

By the Court, Nelson S. Animals ferae naturae, when reclaimed by the 
art and power of man, are the subject of a qualified property if they return 
to their natural liberty and wildness, without the animus revertend, it 
ceases. During the existence of the qualified property, it is under the pro- 
tection of the law the same as any other property, and every invasion of it 
is redressed in the same manner. Bees are ferae naturae, but when 
hived and reclaimed, a person may have a qualified property in them by 
the law of nature, as well as the civil law. Occupation — that is, hiving or 
enclosing them — gives property in them. They are now a common species 
of property, and an article of trade, and the wildness of their nature by 
experience and practice has become essentially subjected to the art and 
power of man. An unreclaimed swarm, like all other wild animals, be-, 
longs to the first occupant — in other words, to the person who first hives 
them; but if a swarm fly from the hive of another, his qualified property 
continues so long as he can keep them in sight, and possess the power to 



NATIONAL—- 

BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION 
Renew&l Blank 



Dear Sir: — 

Your membership in this association expired 

April 18, 1910 if records are con . ect 

There are NO BACK DUES. Annual dues are $1.00, pay- 
able to General Manager, or if any local or State Association 
shall unite with National, and said Secretary sends 50c as 
dues of any of their members as National membership. The 
National Association promotes interests of its members, pro- 
tects their legal rights, its information bureau has helped 
many members and continues its good works. If you have 
anything of interest to bee-keeping to sell, or want 'to buy, 
just report same to Manager, N. E. France. Special low 
prices secured on some supplies to members. 

Every member gets free, an annual report, a badge but- 
ton, receipt for dues and several other leaflets during the year. 



Renewal to General Manager, N* E* France* 

Platteville, Wisconsin 



Date Enclosed find $ as 

my annual dues to the National Bee-Keepers Association. 

Name. 



P. O 

State 









[ 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 5 

pursue them. Under these circumstances no one else is entitled to take 
them. 2 Bl. Com. 303; 2 Kent. Com. 394. 

If a domestic or tame animal of one person should stray to the en- 
closure of another, the owner could not follow and retake it, without being 
liable for a trespass. The absolute right of property, notwithstanding, 
would still continue in him. So in respect to the qualified property in the 
bees. If it continued in the owner after they hived themselves, and abode 
in the hollow tree, as this qualified is under the same protection of law 
as if absolute the like remedy existed in the case of an invasion of it. If 
the property in the swarm conitues while in sight of the owner — in other 
words, while he can distinguish and identify it in the air — that it equally 
belongs to him if it settles upon a branch or in the trunk of a tree, and 
remains there under his observation and charge. 



THE BEE IN LAW— PROPERTY RIGHT IN BEES. 

* 

GLEANINGS. 
By R. D. Fisher. 

"If we have caught a wild beast or bird or fish or bee, the moment this 
animal has been caught it becomes ours, and it is regarded as ours as it 
is under the restraint of our safe keeping; but when it has escaped from 
our keeping, and regained its natural liberty, it becomes the property of 
the first taker, because it ceases to be ours; and such an animal is con- 
sidered to regain its natural liberty when either it has escaped out of our 
sight, or though still in our sight, the pursuit is difficult." 

Blackstone, the great law-giver, says: "Bees also are ferae naturae 
(wild by nature) ; but when hived and reclaimed, a man may have a quali- 
fied property in them by the law of nature as well as by the civil law." 
And words with the civil law, speaks Bracton: "Occupation, that is, hiv- 
ing or including them gives the property in bees; for, though a swarm 
alights upon my tree, I have no more property in them till I have hived 
them than I have in the birds which make their nest thereon; and, there- 
fore, if another hives them, he shall be their proprietor; but a swarm which 
flies from out of my hive is mine so long as I can. keep it in sight and have 
power to pursue them; and in these circumstances no one else is entitled 
to take them." But in respect to such animals as are in the habit of 
going and returning, as pigeons and bees, which are accustomed to go into 
the woods and fields, and come again, we have this traditional rule that, if 
they cease to have the intention of returning, they also cease to be ours, 
and become the property of the first taker, because they cease to be what 
are termed animus revertendi when they have discontinued their habits of 
returning. 

Ownership in bees is ratione soli — that is, bearing reference to the soil, 
and is said to be the ground of ownership in bees. So in the civil law, 
if a swarm of bees had flown from A's hive they were reputed his so long 
as they remained in sight and might easily be pursued; but they do not 
become private property until they are actually hived. 



6 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

QUALIFIED PROPERTY RIGHT— HOW ACQUIRED; PURSUIT, RE- 
CLAIMING, REPLEVIN. 



GLEANINGS. 
By R. D. Fisher. 

Having in a previous article laid down the general rules that govern 
property in wild animals, we shall endeavor to show, how the general na- 
ture of this class of property is applicable to bees. 

Bees are classed with and regarded as wild animals. Therefore, since 
bees are wild animals, and until reclaimed and hived, no property right 
can be acquired in them; hived bees are the bona-fide property of the one 
who has reclaimed them, notwithstanding a temporary escape. So long 
as the owner can identify them they belong to him, and not to the owner 
of the soil to which they escape, although he can not enter the land to 
retake them without consent or committing a trespass. But even in such 
cases it will be seen, during the existence of this qualified right, bees are 
under the protection of the law the same as any other property. Every 
invasion of this property is redressed in the same manner, and reclaimed 
after the same forms of law, as any other property of the same class. 

Bees are regarded in law as a common species of property, an article 
of trade or barter, and the yildness of their nature by practice and art has 
become essentially subjected to the will and power of man. 

PLIGHT AND PURSUIT. 

In case a swarm fly from the owner's hive, his qualified right continues 
only so long as he can keep them in sight, and possesses the power to pur- 
sue them where he has a right to pursue, or otherwise positively and dis- 
tinctly identify them. The difficulties in reclaiming bees after taking 
flight are many. The decisions of our courts furnish numerous peculiar 
circumstances, and unfold the difficulties in reclaiming bees that have 
escaped from the hives or soil of the original owner. In the case of 
Goff vs. Kiltz (15 Wend. N. Y., 550), the New York Supreme Court held 
that, where a swarm of bees left the hive of the plaintiff, and went into a 
tree on the land of another, he having followed the bees and marked the 
tree in which they entered, while he had no right to enter upon the prop- 
erty to recover them without the consent of the owner, yet he could main- 
tain an action of trespass and damages against a third party who entered 
the land, cut the tree down, killed the bees, and took the honey away. 

The New York court, in the case of Goff vs. Kiltz, above said: "They 
remain his property notwithstanding a temporary escape; the owner keep- 
ing them in sight, and marking the tree into which they entered, they 
belong to him and not to the owner of the soil." 

HOW RECOVERED— REPLEVIN. - 

Replevin is the universal remedy in the United States when chattels 
have been wrongfully taken or are wrongfully detained from a claimant, 
and he seeks to recover them in specie instead of satisfaction in damages. 
It is a statutory action, and the statutes are considerably variant. (See 
Cooley's note to Blackstone Com., p. 144). 

Trover is the remedy by which, under the same circumstances, to re- 



NATIONAL EEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 7 

cover satisfaction in damages, the defendant being allowed to retain the 
chattels as of his own property. 



ANIUS REVERTENDI; TRANSPORTATION; LARCENY. 



Bees are ferae naturae, i. e., wild by nature, and classed with such 
wild animals as have what is called the animus revertendi, or a usual habit 
of returning whence they have escaped. During this temporary absence 
they remain the property of the original owner (2 Kent. Com., 348). The 
law, as Blackstone says, "extends this possession further than the mere 
manual occupation; for my tame hawk that is pursuing his quarry in my 
presence, though he is at liberty to go where he pleases, is nevertheless 
my property; for he hath animum revertendi. So are my pigeons, and 
bees that are flying at a distance from their home, and likewise the deer 
that is chased out of my park or forest; all which remain still in my 
possession, and I still preserve my qualified property in them. But if they 
stray without my knowledge, and do not return in the usual manner, it is 
then lawful for any stranger to take them." (2 Blackstone, Com. 392). 

TRANSPORTATION OP BEES; CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE. 

Though it may be optional with railway companies whether they will 
accept the full responsibility of transporting bees, yet if they do so without 
any expres restriction they are liable as common carriers. But they may 
agree for a less hire simply to transport bees, furnish cars> etc.; and if 
the shipper and owner of the bees agrees to the lower rate, he cannot 
hold them as common carriers. For a given reward they proffer to be- 
come his carrier; for a less reward they proffer to furnish the necessary 
means that the owner of the bees may be his own carrier. (Kimball vs. 
Ry. Co., 26 Vt, 247). 

BEES THE SUBJECT OF LARCENY. 

But in a recent Rhode Island case (Rexroth vs. Coon, 15 R. I. 35), the 
plaintiff, without permission, placed a hive of bees upon the land of a third 
person. The defendant, also a trespasser, removed the bees and honey 
which had collected in the hive. The court found that there was no 
cause -of action, holding that neither plaintiff nor defendant had any title 
or right to possession to the bees or to the honey. 

Bees are likened unto wild animals belonging to no one so long as 
they are in their wild state and property in them is acquired by occupancy, 
hiving, and reclaiming only, and are not the subject of larceny unless they 
are in the owners' custody as in a hive, bee house, or otherwise confined 
and within the control of the possessor or owner. 



KEEPING BEES— WHEN AND WHEN NOT A NUISANCE. 

♦ 

1. General Definition. — The term "nuisance," in legal phraseology is 
applied to that class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable, unwar- 



8 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

rantable or unlawful use by a person of his own property, real or personal, 
or from his own improper or unlawful conduct, working an obstruction of, 
or injury to a right of another or of the public, and producing such material 
annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will presume 
a consequent damage. 

2. Public and Private Nuisances. — Public or common nuisances affect 
the community at large, or some considerable portion of it, such as the 
inhabitants of a town or community; and the person therein offending is 
liable to criminal prosecution. A public nuisance does not necessarily 
create a civil cause of action for any person; but it may do so under cer- 
tain conditions. A private nuisance affects only one person or a deter- 
minate number of persons and is the ground of civil proceedings only. 
Generally it affects the control, use, or enjoyment of immovable property; 
but this is not a necessary element according to the modern view of the 
law. A nuisance, to be a public nuisance must be in a public place or 
where the public frequently congregate, or where members of the public 
are likely to come within the range of its influence; for if the act or use 
of property be in a remote and unfrequented locality, it will not be a public 
nuisance. A common nuisance according to English authority, is an un- 
lawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission 
endangers the lives, safety, health, property, or comfort of the public, or 
by which the public is obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right 
common to all the people. 

Strictly speaking, a trade or occupation, a business or industry lawful 
in itself, and which becomes a nuisance because of its location, or the man- 
ner in which it is conducted, or the character of the animals or thing, is 
not a nuisance per se, though it may be a prima-facie nuisance. 

3. Keeping Bees. — When and Where Not a Nuisance. — Whether bees 
are or are not a nuisance is to be judicially determined in each individual 
case and it would seem the foregoing definitions were broad enough to 
include them. Only few cases have found their way to the higher courts, 
involving this subject; but, with the development of the fruit-growing in- 
dustry the bee's liberty is more than ever questioned, and it is not unlikely 
that the future will be conducive to much litigation between the fruit- 
grower and the bee-keeper. 

Place of Keeping Bees. — One engaged in the business of keeping bees 
may not rightfully keep his bees in a place upon his premises so as to 
annoy his neighbors. Such an act is a nuisance. One of the earlier 
cases on this subject was decided by the New York Supreme Court (Olm- 
sted vs. Rich 6 N. Y. Supt., 826), and other courts have been content to 
follow it. In this, case the evidence showed that the plaintiff and de- 
fendants were neighbors; that the defendants were keeping a large num- 
ber of hives of bees in a lot immediately joining the plaintiff's dwelling- 
house, and that at certain seasons they were a source of great annoyance 
to him and his family, and also that they could be removed without mate- 
rial difficulty to a place on the defendants' premises where they would not 
disturb the neighbors. The action was in the nature of an injunction to 
prevent defendants from maintaining their apiary at the place above 
named. The court held that the case was a proper one for a permanent 
injunction. In such action the issue was not as to defendants' motives in 
keeping bees, but simply whether the condition of things, as then and pre- 
viously existing, constituted. a nuisance. The court held affirmatively, and 
the bees were ordered removed in order to abate the nuisance. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 9 

On the other hand, an ordinance by a city council which makes the 
owning, keeping, or raising of bees within a city's limits a nuisance per se 
is too broad, and is, therefore, invalid. The most celebrated case of this 
kind on record is that of Clark vs. City of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, 52 Ark., 
23. The evidence in this case showed that Clark, who had kept bees in 
that city for a number of years was not in political harmony with those in 
power and the latter sought to punish him and get rid of his presence by 
prohibiting the keeping of bees within the corporate limits of the city. 
Clark was ordered to remove his bees, but refused to do so, and his arrest 
and conviction by the city court under the ordinance followed. He ap- 
pealed to the Circuit Court, the latter dismissing the prosecution, and 
then the state appealed to the Supreme Court, wherein it is held that. 
"Although bees may become a nuisance in a city, an ordinance which makes 
the owning, keeping, or raising them within the city limits a nuisance 
whether it is in fact so or not, is too broad and is not valid." 

While bees have been kept for centuries in towns and cities it is a 
fact, so far as we have been able to discover by a careful search of the 
court records that the city of Arkadelphia is the first on record to attempt 
to forbid them. "All ordinances, arbitrary in their terms, and unreasonable, 
and unnecessarily abridging private rights, are void," says Dillon on 
Municipal Corporations. City ordinances can not be levied at a mere 
private nuisance to one or more persons. The nuisance must be public 
and general in its character, and must be an actual nuisance with sufficient 
evidence to sustain it. Courts have, therefore, taken knowledge of the 
habits of bees, and hold that it would be impossible at the present state 
of the bee industry for them to be more than a private nuisance, for which 
the person or persons injured or annoyed have their remedy as set forth 
in the Olmsted vs. Rich case, supra. 

The decision of the Arkansas court is valuable and stimulating prece- 
dent is good law, and a menace to those who attempt to interfere with 
useful and growing industry pursuit or occupation. 



DAMAGES— WHEN AND WHEN NOT A NUISANCE. 

4 

1. Definition. — Damages are the indemnity recoverable by a person 
who has sustained an injury either in his person, property or relative 
rights, through the act or default of another. 

But no damages are recoverable for a mere inconvenience attending 
the existence of a public benefit. 

CAPACITY TO TRESPASS. 

Courts judicially know that bees can not be stabled as other animals 
are; that to do so would destroy their value as property. If the owners 
of houses, grocers, and fruit-dealers were not careless in leaving the attrac- 
tions for them, bees would commit no trespass. They would go to pas- 
ture among forest, fields, and amid flowers. But the grocers, fruit-dealers, 
and fruit-raisers say they are not required to screen against bees if demos- 
ticated and regarded as property; that the law should protect them from 
the ravages of trespassing bees the same as any other trespassing animals. 



10 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

This is true only so far as identification can be made positive. The in- 
stinct of bees is well understood, but their identification is difficult. The 
relation between fruit-growers and bee-keepers is said to be somewhat 
strained. The former claim it to be fair to compel the bee-keeper to feed 
his bees at home in seasons when they would otherwise prove a nuisance 
and damaging trespassers to his neighboring fruit grower. Whether it 
would or would not be possible to keep bees at home by feeding them heav- 
ily is an open question. But this plan would entail a heavy tax upon the 
bee-keeper. Would it be just to make the bee-keeper pay this when, quite 
likely, the cracked and rotting fruit which the bee would take from the 
neighbor's orchard has been produced, at least has set, because of the 
labors in pollination of these same bees? When bees find a fair supply 
of nectar in the flowers within reach of their hive they prefer that to 
fruit, and few bees then attack fruit. But it is not at all sure that liberal 
feeding will keep all of the bees at home, or nearly all of them, from trying 
to get fruit, sugar or juices. 

The next suggestion is that of moving away if the cost would be less 
than feeding. But can the bee-keeper get away from the fruit-grower? 
If the extensive fruit-grower can sue and collect damages for injuries to 
the fruit on his 1,000 trees, the owner of one tree, and 1,000 owners of 
trees within flying distance of an apiary can also collect. If an abundant 
bee-pasture happens to exist a few miles away, the solution is easy and 
the moving practical. But this is usually of short duration; civilization 
and improvements, farms and fruit-gardens, soon follow, and the cry is 
again, "Move on!" On the other hand, it is claimed that the damages to 
fruit alleged to be due to bees is too remote and uncertain; and as already 
stated, the benefits from pollination are equal to, yes, far greater than the 
damages. Few if any cases have reached the higher courts, and the judg- 
ments of the low courts are largely based upon actual damages proved, and 
identification of trespassing bees. 

INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY. 

A small son of an Indiana farmer left the team he was driving, near 
some bee-hives, while he chased a squirrel. The horses backed the wagon 
onto the hives, and the animals were so badly stung that they died. The 
boy was also stung so badly that he lost the sight of one eye. It was held 
that the boy's negligence occasioned the injury and resulting damages, and 
no recovery could be had. 

An Iowa farmer maintained a hitching-rack at the roadside in front of 
his residence. Near by, but within his enclosure, he kept a number of 
stands of bees. A neighbor voluntarily hitched his horses to the rack. 
A swarm of bees settled upon the animals, causing them to break the 
tethers and run away. In their flight they collided with a team and 
vehicle going in an opposite direction, and both teams and vehicles were 
damaged. It was held that the hitching of the horses near the bees was 
a voluntary act, and the attack by the bees was too remote to justify a 
recovery from the bee-keeper for the joint damages suffered by the owners 
of the wrecked outfits. 

In the case of Earl vs. Van Alstine (8 Barbour, 630), the New York 
Supreme Court held that the owner of bees is not liable, at all events, for 
any accidental injury they may do; that one who owns or keeps an animal 
of any kind becomes liable for any injury the animal may do, only on the 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 11 

ground of some actual or presumed negligence on his part. It was 
alleged in this case that defendant owned and wrongfully kept fifteen 
hives of bees in his yard adjoining the public highway, and that the plain- 
tiff's horses, while traveling along the public highway, and passing the 
place where the bees were kept, were attacked and stung so severely 
that one died and the other was greatly injured. A judgment of $71 was 
appealed from, and the court, in reversing this judgment said: "In an 
action against the owner of bees for an injury done by them to the plain- 
tiff's horses while traveling along the highway where the bees were kept, 
it appears that the bees had been kept in the same situation for nine 
years, and there was no proof of any injuries ever having been done by 
them, but, on the contrary, neighbors testified that they had been in the 
habit of passing and repassing the place frequently, without having been 
molested. This rebutted the idea of any notice to the bee-keeper, either 
from the nature of the bees or otherwise that it would be dangerous to 
keep them in that situation, and hence he could not be made liable." 

1.— OFFENSE AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY; UNLAWFUL ENTICE- 
MENT OF BEES— PENALTIES. 

Laws of Connecticut, 1882, Chapter 67, Central Stat. 1888, Sec. 1466, 
provide that every person who shall place upon the premises of another 
any tub, box, or other contrivance for the purpose of enticing swarms of 
bees from the premises of their lawful owner shall- be fined not more than 
seven dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days. 

2.— BEES, PROPERTY IN; DEPOSITS ON LAND. 

Laws of Georgia, 1883, Chapter 2, Sec. 3074, Stat. 1895, provide that 
any deposit made by wild animals on realty belongs to the owner; thus 
honey deposited by bees in a tree belongs to the owner of the tree, though 
the bees may be hived by another; so the eggs and young birds, or the 
increase of animals (bees), so long as they remain unable to leave the land, 
belong to the owner. 

3.— BEES, WITH HIVES AND HONEY, EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION. 

Statute of Vermont, 1894, Sec. 1805, provides that, among the goods 
or chattels of a debtor which are exempt from attachment and execution 
to satisfy a judgment debt, are three swarms of bees and their hives, with 
their produce in honey, provided the suit brought is not to recover pay- 
ment for the purchase price thereof, or for material or labor expended on 
the same. 

4.— POISON, EXPOSING WITH INTENT TO DESTROY BEES— PENAL- 
TIES. 

Section 1247, Rev. "Stat Kentucky (Carroll), provides that if any person 
on land or premises not in his possession or under his control shall lay or 
expose any poisonous substance with intent to destroy honey-bees he shall 
be fined not less than five nor more than fifty dollars. 

Same, Code and Stat. Washington, Sec. 7161 (Laws '97, p. 11), pro- 
vides that it shall be unlawful for any person within the State of Wash- 



12 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

ington to wilfully or maliciously kill or poison any honey-bees. It shall 
further be unlawful for any person within said state to wilfully or malic- 
iously place any poisonous or sweetened substance for the purpose of in- 
juring honey-bees in any place where such poisoned or sweetened substance 
is accessible to honey-bees within this state. Any person or persons 
violating said law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of 
not less than ten dollars or more than one hundred dollars. 

5.— BEES, ENTERING PREMISES TO DISTURB, STEAL, OR CARRY 

AWAY— PENALTY. 

Laws of Ohio (Rev. Stat. 1890 (S & B), Sec. 6840) provide that who- 
ever unlawfully enters the premises of another for the purpose of disturb- 
ing, or carrying away any box, gum, or vessel containing bees or honey, 
or injuring or carrying away any such property, shall be fined not more 
than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than sixty days or both. 
(60 A. 5, Sec. 1, S. & S., 279). 

Same, Laws of Nebraska, 1879, Sec. 81, provide that, if any person 
shall steal any hive, bee-palace, or other contrivance containing honey 
or honey bees, the property of another, of less value than thirty-five dol- 
lars; or if any person shall steal honey from any such receptacle or other 
contrivance, or shall wilfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or disturb 
any of the aforesaid receptacles or other contrivances containing honey 
or honey bees, or if any person shall steal, or by art, device, or contrivance, 
or in any manner whatever, decoy from any such hive, box, bee-palace, 
or contrivance any such honey bees, with intent to convert the same to his 
own use, or with intent to damage or defraud the owner thereof, or by 
any art or device, injure, damage, or destroy any such honey bees by 
means of poison or otherwise, such offender shall be fined not exceeding 
one hundred dollars, and be confined in the county jail not less than ten, 
nor more than thirty days, and shall be liable to the party injured in 
double the value of the property stolen, injured, or destroyed. 



CITY BEE-KEEPING UPHELD. 

« 



Case of the City of Rochester, N. Y., vs. W. R. Taunton. 

In December, 1900, the City of Rochester, N. Y., had under consider- 
ation the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of bees within 
the city limits. ■ W. R. Taunton, a member of the National Bee-Keepers' 
Association, living in the city, and whose business and liberties would be 
interfered with by such ordinance, appealed to the general manager for 
advice and assistance. Such printed matter as it was thought would be of 
service to him was forwarded, and, with the assistance of able counsel, 
Mr. Taunton succeeded in having the proposed ordinance, withdrawn. 

But in April, 1901, the matter was revived, and through the persistent 
efforts of one of the aldermen, and in spite of all objections and remon- 
strances, the ordinance passed. 

Mr. Taunton was advised not to remove his bees, and assured that if 
he got into trouble the Association would defend him. 

Mr. Marks — a director of the National Association — was requested to 



NATIONAL BEE KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 13 

go to Rochester and make a complete investigation. He did so, and re- 
ported that in his opinion Mr. Taunton was handling his bees in a manner 
not to annoy neighbors, and thought he ought to be protected, 

In corresponding with our attorney, Mr. Dutcher, the latter stated that 
the police judge, before whom the case was likely to come, was an able 
man, and thought the Association would better risk it there. 

The case was tried upon a warrant of arrest for refusing to comply 
with the ordinance, and the Judge of the Police Court rendered his decision, 
setting aside the ordinance, and discharged the defendant. 

Police Court of Rochester, N. Y. ) 
The People vs. Taunton. ) 

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT. 

The defendant was arrested upon a warrant based upon an ordinance 
passed by the Common Councli of the City of Rochester on April last, 
which provides in substance that no bees shall be kept or maintained with- 
in the limits of the city of Rochester, without the permission in writing of 
the lot owners owning lots within one hundred feet of the lines within 
which any bees are desired to be kept or maintained. 

At the trial, the defendant moved that the warrant be dismissed and 
the defendant discharged, upon the grounds: 

First — That the ordinance upon which the warrant is based and which 
defendant is accused of violating, is unconstitutional and void. 

Secondly — That the ordinance in question is not fair, impartial and 
reasonable, but is oppressive. 

Thirdly — That the ordinance in question is an unlawful attempt on the 
part of the Common Council to delegate its powers to private individuals. 

Upon this motion, the defendant will not discuss the question whether 
the Common Council has power to prohibit the keeping of bees, as that 
question does not arise under the ordinance. 

In the first place, the question whether the ordinance is unconstitu- 
tional or whether it violates some other principle of law is a question of 
law for the court and must be decided irrespective of the facts in any 
particular case. 

In People ex rel. Kemmler vs. Durston, 119 N. Y., at page 578, the 
Court says: "If it can not be made to appear that a law is in conflict with 
the Constitution by argument deduced from the language of the law itself 
or from matters of which a court can take judicial notice, then the act 
must stand. The testimony of expert or other witnesses is not admissible 
to show that in carrying out a law enacted by the legislature, some pro- 
vision of the constitution may possibly be violated." 

In the Matter of Elevated Railroad, 70 N. Y., at page 327, Court 
holds that a court can not take proof of facts for the purpose of showing 
a statute valid and regular upon its face to be unconstitutional. 

So that the question whether the ordinance is fair, impartial and 
reasonable must be determined from the ordinance itself. 

In Beach on Public Corporations, Sec. 515 the learned author says: 
"It is a well-settled principle that a municipal by-law or ordinance must be 
reasonable. The courts will decline to enforce it, it will be declared 
void as a matter of law." 

And again at Section 514, the same author says: "It is, of course a 



14 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

question of law and not of fact for the court, and not for the jury, whether 
any specific ordinance is so unreasonable as to be void." 

FIRST. 

The ordinance is passed under the so-called police powers of the city, 
but the police powers of the city are not above the Constitution and 
are subject to the control of the courts. 

In Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, at page 110, the Court says: "These cita- 
tions are sufficient to show that the police power is not without limita- 
tions, and that in its exercise the legislature must respect the great fun- 
damental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If this were otherwise, 
the power of the legislature would be practically without limitation. In 
the assumed exercise of the police power in the interest of health, the 
welfare or safety of the public, every right of the citizen might be invaded 
and every constitutional barrier swept away. Under the mere guise of 
police regulations, personal rights and private property can not be arbi- 
trarily invaded, and the determination of the legislature is not final or 
conclusive. It matters not that the legislature may, in the title to the 
act or in its body, declare that it is intended for the improvement of the 
public health. Such a declaration does not conclude the courts, and they 
must yet determine the fact declared and enforce the supreme law." 

SECOND. 

The ordinance is unconstitutional for two reasons: First, it is an at- 
tempt to take property without due process of law; and, secondly, the 
ordinance denies the equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the 
fourteenth amendment to the "United States Constitution. 

In Stewart vs. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, due process of law is defined as 
follows: "Due process of law is not confined to judicial proceedings, but 
extends to every case which may deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or prop- 
erty, whether the proceedings be judicial, administrative, or executive in 
its nature." 

In Re Jacobs, supra, the facts were that the legislature passed a 
statute prohibiting the making of cigars in tenement houses in New York 
and Brooklyn. 

The Court of Appeals set the statute aside as unconstitutional upon 
the ground that it was depriving persons of property without due process 
of law. The court says, at page 104: "What does this act attempt to do? 
In form, it makes it a crime for a cigar-maker in New York and Brooklyn 
the only cities in the state having a population exceeding 500,000, to carry 
on a perfectly lawful trade in his own home. Whether he owns the tene- 
ment house or has hired a room therein for the purpose of prosecuting his 
trade, he can not manufacture therein his own tobacco into cigars for his 
own use or for sale, and he will become a criminal for doing that which is 
perfectly outside of the two cities named — everywhere else, so far as 
we are able to learn, in the whole world." 

In the case at bar, the ordinance makes it lawful to keep bees in one 
part of the city, provide certain consents c.2n be given; but to keep the 
bees in another part of the city would be unlawful if the consents were 
not obtained. 

The court further says in the case cited, at page 105: "The constitu- 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 15 

tional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his property without, 
due process of law may be violated without the physical taking of property 
for public or private use. Property may be destroyed, or its value may be 
annihilated; it is owned and kept for some useful purpose, and it has no 
value unless it can be used. Its capability for enjoyment and adaptability 
to some use are essentialcharacteristics and attributes without which prop- 
erty can not be conceived; and, hence, any law which destroys it or its 
value, or takes away any of its essential attributes deprives the owner of 
his property." 

In Butchers' Union Co. vs. Crescent City Co., Ill U. S. 746, Judge 
Field says: "The common businesses and callings of life, the ordinary 
trades and pursuits, which are innocent in themselves, and have been fol- 
lowed in all communities from the immemorial, must, therefore, be fiee 
in this country to all alike upon the same terms The right to pursue 
them without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to an per- 
sons of the same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege which 
they claim as their birth-right." In the same case, Judge Bradley says: 
"I hold that the liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of the ordinary 
callings of life, is one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States, 
of which he can not be deprived without invading his right to liberty 
within the meaning of the constitution." 

In the case at bar, the ordinance attempts to deprive a person of his 
property and prevent its use at the mere will of a private individual. The 
duly constituted authorities of the City do not act in the matter at all, but 
turn over their powers to private citizens who are taking the liberty at 
their own sweet will to destroy the property belonging to another. Can 
there be any question but that this is taking property without due process 
of law? 

Secondly — The ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies the equal 
protection of the law, as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the 
United States Constitution. Upon this point, we will call the attention 
of the court to the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 117 U. S. 356. In this 
case, the board of supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco 
passed an ordinance which provided that it should be unlawful for any 
person to establish, maintain or carry on a laundry wittin the corporate 
limits of the City of San Francisco, without first having obtained the con- 
sent of the Board of Supervisors, except the same be located in a build- 
ing constructed either of brick or stone. It will be noticed that in the 
San Francisco ordinance the consent of officials was required, while in 
the ordinance which we are discussing, only the consent of private in- 
dividuals is required. An ordinance, which requires the consent of officials 
is certainly more reasonable and proper than one which requires the con- 
sent of individuals. Public officials are bound not only by the dictates of 
their consciences, but also by the weight of the judicial oath, and are re- 
sponsible to the people for their actions; while private individuals can act 
at their own sweet wilL In speaking of this ordinance passed by the 
Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, the Supreme Court of the United 
States says during the progress of its opinion: "We are not able to con- 
cur in that interpretation of the power conferred upon the supervisors. 
There is nothing in the ordinance which points to such a regulation of the 
business of keeping and conducting laundries. They seem intended to 
confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a con- 
sideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary 



16 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons. 
The power given to them is not confided to their discretion in the legal 
sense of that term, but is granted to their mere will. It is purely arbi- 
trary and acknowledges neither guidance nor restraint." And, again: "It 
does not prescribe a rule and conditions, for the regulation of the use of 
property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may con- 
form. It allows without restriction the use for such purposes of build- 
ings of brick or stone; but as to wooden bulidings, constituting nearly all 
those in previous use, it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes, 
not having respect to their personal character and qualifications for the 
business, nor the situation and nature and adaptation of the buildings 
themselves, but merely by an arbitrary line, on one side of which are those 
who are permitted to pursue their industry by the mere will and consent 
of the supervisors, and the other those from whom that consent is with- 
held, at their mere will and pleasure And both classes are alike only in 
this: that they are tenants at will, under the supervisors, of their means 
of living." And, again: "For the very idea that one man may be com- 
pelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essen- 
tial to the enjoyment of life, as the mere will of another, seems to be in- 
tolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of 
slavery itself." And, again: "The same principle has been more freely 
extended to the quasi-legislative acts of inferior municipal bodies in re- 
spect to which it is an ancient jurisdiction of judicial tribunals to pro- 
nounce upon the reasonableness and consequent validity of their by-laws." 
And, again: "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in 
appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with 
en evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and 
illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material 
to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of 
the Constitution." And, again: "The discrimination is therefore illegal 
and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal 
protection of the laws and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the 
Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is therefore illegal, 
and they must be discharged." 

No authority is needed except the case cited. A reading of the com- 
plete opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States will show that that 
high judicial authority condemned in the most severe terms ordinances 
like the one which we are discussing, as being only not reasonable, but a 
denial of the equal protection of the law. 

THIRD. 

The ordinance is void, not because it is unfair, partial and unreason- 
able, but is oppressive. 

In Beach on Public Corporations, Sec. 90, the author says: "A city, 
although fully authorized to enact ordinances can not pass unreasonable 
ones. The ordinance of a city must be reasonable. It must not be op- 
pressive; it must not be partial or unfair." The same author says, at 
Section 512: "It is a well settled principle that a municipal law or ordi- 
nance must be reasonable." 

In Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Sec. 319, the author says: "In 
this country the courts have often affirmed that general incidental power 
of municipal corporations to make ordinances, but have always declared 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 17 

that ordinances passed in virtue of the implied power, must be reason- 
able and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the state." 

In the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, supra, also held that municipal 
corporations must be reasonable. 

Can it be said that the ordinance which we are discusisng is reason- 
able? 

It does not provide that citizens living within one hundred feet, must 
give their permission to keep bees, but that the owners of the lots wher- 
ever they may live must give such permission. These owners might 
live in New York, Buffalo, or Europe, and have no personal interest in the 
matter and yet their permission is required. Again, under this ordinance, 
permission might be obtained, and then, immediately afterwards, the lots 
within one hundred feet of the place where bees are to be kept might be 
sold, and permission would have to be obtained from the new owners. 

Under this ordinance, a person who owns a lot in the outskirts of the 
city, a mile from any dwelling, might not be permitted to keep bees, while 
a person living in a thickly populated district can keep bees, if he gets 
the permission. In other words, under this ordinance, the owner of a 
lot in the center of a city or adjoining a school house, may be permitted 
to keep bees, while a person owning a lot in the outskirts of the city 
would not be permitted to keep bees. In fact many illustrations might 
be given, and will readily suggest themselves to the mind of the Court, 
of the purely arbitrary character of this ordinance and the unjust manner 
in which it may operate. The private citizen, from mere caprice or ill- 
temper or bad feeling against the bee-owner may deprive him of the use 
of his property. 

In fact, the right depends wholly upon the personal inclinations and 
caprice of adjoining lot owners. 

FOURTH. 

The ordinance in question is an unlawful attempt to delegate the pow- 
ers conferred upon the Common Council to private individuals. 

Article Two, Section 12, of the City Charter, provides that the Com- 
mon Council "has authority to enact ordinances not inconsistent with the 
laws of the State, for the government of the city and the management of 
its business, for the preservation of good order, peace and good health, 
for the safety and welfare of its inhabitants and the protection and security 
of their property." 

This statute plainly contemplates that the discretion as to whether a 
certain thing is or is not a nuisance must be vested in the Common 
Council; but in the ordinance in question, that body has not determined 
that bees are a nuisance, or that they should only be kept in certain pre- 
scribed portions of the city, but the Common Council has turned its powers 
and its discretions entirely over to private individuals. That the Com- 
mon Council has not passed upon the question as to whether or not bees 
shall be kept, is illustrated by the fact that with the requisite permission 
of adjoining owners, bees can be kept in every lot in the city of Rochester. 
There is an ordinance in force which provides against intoxicants in pub- 
lic places; but suppose an ordinance should be passed which would pro- 
vide that a person might be intoxicated in a public place, provided he could 
get the written permission of every person owning property within a cer- 
tain distance of the place where he desires to get drunk — could such an 
ordinance be supported in the courts? And yet, such an ordinance would 
be precisely like the one in question. 



18 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

In Birdsall vs. Clark, 73 N. Y., 73, the Court holds that public powers 
of trust devolved by law or charter upon the Common Council or govern- 
ing body of a municipal corporation, to be exercised by or when and in 
such manner as it shall judge best, can not be delegated by such body to 
others. 

The ordinance is not a determination by the Common Council that the 
preservation of good order, peace and health, the safety and welfare of 
the inhabitants of the city, and the protection and security of their prop- 
erty demands that bees shall not be kept; but the ordinance leaves such 
questions entirely to the determination of private individuals. Under the 
ordinance, there is absolutely no restriction to the keeping of bees in any 
part of the city, providing the bee-owner can obtain the consent of his 
adjacent lot owners. There can be no question but that under the several 
points made above, the ordinance in question is void and can not be en- 
forced; and it follows that the defendant should be discharged. 

FREDERICK L. DUTCHER, 

Attorney for Defendant, Rochester, N. Y. 

JOHN A. BARHITE, of Counsel. 



TAXES ON BEES. 



In most of the States the bees are considered as personal property, 
subject to assessment and taxes. Valuation ranging from 25c to $3.00 
per colony. Generally however, the assessor takes the owner's word as to 
number of colonies spring count, and as a rule places valuation at $1.00 
per hive reported. In a test case, it was decided bees are wild by nature, 
uncertain, and not property. But that the hives and fixtures are personal 
property, subject to taxes as other property. Again if the city or town 
tax your bees, they are not a nuisance. A certain number of colonies in 
majority of the States are exempt from taxes. (Wisconsin exempts five 
colonies). In some states there is a special tax of from one cent to five 
cents per colony on all hives, to become a special fund, reserved to pay 
expenses of an inspector of apiaries in said district. (See Ohio, Kentucky 
and South Dakota laws.) 



NO LICENSE. 



Decision of Chief Justice Bradley, U. S. Supreme Court, March 7, 1887. 

No decision of the United Sttaes Supreme Court attracted more inter- 
est than this by Chief Justice Bradley exempting agents, salesmen, solic- 
itors, peddlers from special State, County, 6r Town taxes. Such special 
license and tax laws are declared unconstitutional and any officer who 
attempts to enforce them is individually liable for damages. 

The case under consideration, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, sold 
goods by sample in Tennessee, and was arrested — fined for selling without 
a license. Congress regulates commerce among the several States. The 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 19 

failure of Congress to make express regulations indicate its will that 
the subject shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions. Any 
regulation of the subject by the States, except in matters of local concern 
only, is repugnant to such freedom. 

REGARDING SELLING HONEY. 

Producers of honey can sell without license his goods. With help of 
team if necessary. Does not have to label the same. But if it is labeled 
the same shall not be misleading. (U. S. Pure Food Laws). 

If you buy honey to sell, and in the city where sales are made have 
a place of business, (your own place of business, or is a rented place), 
there take and deliver orders, with help of horse if necessary, you for the 
time have become a part of said city, and doing business, require no 
license for same. Your rental of room is considered as paying taxes. 
Also for the time you are residing in the city as a resident. After cer- 
tain number of days would be entitled to the privilege of voting. 

I know of several beekeepers shipping quantities of honey to them- 
selves in cities, then renting a room in the city, there melting and bottling 
the honey before taking orders in said city. Using horses to help de- 
livery of same as any other merchant. 

Purchased hoDey sold in original packages should have label on show- 
ing from where and by whom produced. If the honey is sold in your 
packages, label should not be worded "Put Up By" (U. S. Food Laws), but 
use the word "Distributor" under your name. To illustrate, I buy honey 
of you, and sell in other packages, labeled "Pure Honey, N. E. France, 
Distributor, Piatteville, Wis." 



BEES AND HORTICULTURE— THEIR RELATIONS MUTUAL. 

— — ♦ 

The purpose of these clippings is to put into condensed form, for the 
use of Bee-Keepers and Fruit-Growers, such information as is at hand, 
derived from experience and recent investigations, relating to the economy 
of Nature in plant and insect life, and to show their mutual interdepen- 
dence. 

RELATION OF BEES TO HORTICULTURE. 

There is in plants or flowers what answers to sex in animals. Some- 
times both sexes exist in the same flower, sometimes in different flowers 
of the same plant, sometimes in separate plants. But whatever the plan 
of growth, fruitfulness depends upon the fertilization or pollination of the 
pistil by the grains of pollen produced on the stamen. The stigma, gener- 
ally the upper part of the pistil, is a part neunded of the epidermis, touched 
with a viscid (sticky) substance, and when the proper pollen adheres to 
this part,, the pollen puts forth pollen-tubes which lengthen till they reach 
the ovules, which completes fertilization and causes fruit or seed to grow. 

Pollen and honey are necessary for the preservation of certain forms 
of insect life, and the distribution of pollen by insects seems to be essen- 
tial to the best development of the plants visited by them. Honey-bees 
are the most important of all the pollen-distributing insects. They ap- 



20 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

pear in greater numbers early in the season, and their great activity ren- 
ders them more potent in this field of usefulness than any other species. 
It is now quite well understood that insects are absolutely necessary to a 
crop of cucumbers, melons or squashes, and bees are kept for the purpose 
of pollinating them when grown on a large scale, if there is no apiary in 
the neighborhood. 

BEES AS POLLEN DISTRIBUTORS. 

The honey-bee as a pollen-distributor is perhaps of greater value to 
this country than the crop of honey produced. It has of late years oc- 
curred to scientists that the honey-bee is of more benefit for distributing 
pollen than all other sources combined. That we are largely indebted to 
the honey-bee for both quantity and quality of our fine fruits there is but 
little doubt. Not only fruits, but vegetables and cereals commonly grown 
on the farm. 

The honey-bee is a general pollen-gatherer wherever pollen is to be 
found, and thus works an extensive territory. Bees thoroughly canvass 
several miles in diameter in search of both pollen and honey, and are 
always pollen-distributors whether they are engaged in gathering honey 
or pollen. 

Who has not seen the cornfields with their heavy laden tassels of pol- 
len swarming with honey-bees? Also the clover fields, the buckwheat 
fields, the orchards, the vegetable fields, and almost every wild flower that 
produces either fruit or seed is daily visited by the busy bees, perhaps 
every hour in the day, thus distributing pollen from flower to flower, 
industriously performing the work that Nature intended them to do. 

Fruit-growers of the present have awakened to the fact that the 
honey-bee is their best friend, and that bees and fruit-growing must be 
closely combined So it is all along the line of this immense field of labor 
depending upon the honey-bee principally for successful returns. That 
there are not enough bees to supply thoroughly this want there is little 
doubt; many neighborhoods have but a few colonies of bees. In support 
of this I would refer you to the State of California, which is the most 
extensive bee-keeping State in the Union, and also the same in the pro- 
duction of fruit. — National Rural. 

VALUE OF BEES IN CROSS POLLINATION. 

One of the ways by which the benefits of crossing are insured 
to plants is through their sterility to their own pollen Some fifty or more 
species of plants are already known to be more or less completely fruit- 
less when only pollen from the same plant is applied to their flowers, al- 
though the same plants mature fruits and seeds when pollen from an- 
other plant is used. 

The nectar in pear-blossoms is secreted copiously in the disk, often 
filling^ the cup with a large drop, and serves to attract bees and other 
insects, as does also the pollen. The white, showy petals are a guide 
to the insects, and as the flowers grow in clusters, and the clusters are 
numerous, a tree in full bloom attracts insects from long distances. When 
a bee alights on the flower, the stigma brushes from its hairy coat some 
of the pollen which adhered to it in previous visits to other trees, and, 
if these trees were of a different variety, the flowers are thus cross- 
pollinated. The pistils mature two or three days before the stamens of 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 21 

the same flower, and the fully expanded sitgma often protrudes through 
the petals before they are open, thus being pollinated from some earlier- 
opening flower before the pollen of its own flower is ready — another means 
by which cross-pollination takes place. 

The apples resulting from some of the experiments were collected 
and studied, and the results were found to be paralleled with those ob- 
tained in the experiments with pears, the crosses being larger, more highly 
colored, and better supplied with seed. For example, the hand-crossed 
Baldwin apples were highly colored, well matured, and contained abun- 
ant seeds, while the self-fertilized fruits were only slightly colored, were 
but one-fourth or two-thirds the regular size, and seedless, The crosses 
were, in other words, like the better specimens of apples, not bagged, 
from the same tree, and the self-fertilized fruits corresponded with the 
undersized, poorly-colored specimens. 

The number of insect visitors in any orchard determines, to a great 
extent, the amount of cross-pollination carried on. The pollen of the 
pear and the apple is not produced in sufficient quantity, nor is it of the 
right consistency to be carried by the wind, and the pollination of these 
trees is therefore dependent on the activity of the insects. In an ordin- 
ary spring there is usually an abundance of these insects to cross-pollinate 
orchards of a few hundred trees thoroughly, but in the case of large com- 
mercial orchards, especially where several are close to each other, there 
is not a sufficient number of insects for cross pollination when the main 
body of trees is in bloom, if there is no apiary in the neighborhood. 
Therefore, each large orchardist should keep a number of colonies of bees 
Honey-bees, and other members of the bee-family are the best workers 
in cross-pollination. 

Be sure there are sufficient bees in the neighborhood, or at least 
within two or three miles, to visit the blossoms properly. When possible, 
endeavor to favor the bees by selecting sheltered situations for the orchard, 
or by planting wind-breaks. — Prof. M. B. Waite, in Year Book, Department 
of Agriculture, for 1898. 

SOME FRUITS ARE SELF-STERILE. 

Careful experiments by entomologists have shown that bees are not 
guilty of cutting open grapes and other fruits, as their mandibles are too 
weak, and are not designed for such work. It is, of course, true that 
after fruits have been torn open by wasps, birds, etc., the bees feed on the 
pulp and juice. — Prof. Hunter, of Kansas, before the American Nursery- 
men at Chicago, June 14, 1899. 

Bees are also very useful to the horticulturist, as they are able to 
carry pollen from one flower to another and thus fertilize the flowers, As 
many of our fruits are self-sterile, they could not fruit without this help 
from the bees. 

INSECTS NECESSARY. 

If bees are kept from fruit-blossoms by netting or other artificial 
means, the amount of fruit set is little or none. It not infrequently hap- 
pens that inclement weather prevents or hinders the flying of bees dur- 
ing the period when flowers are receptive. A fruit-tree, half of which 
was subject to a continuous spray of water during the flowering period, 
produced no fruit upon the sprayed portion, but an abundance upon the 



22 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

other. A failure due to the above-mentioned cause can not well be pre- 
vented, but may be modified by having bees near at hand to utilize the 
short favorable periods which do occur. 

An insufficient supply of bees will hinder the setting of fruit, and 
while other insects may take part in the carrying of pollen, the fruit- 
raiser must rely chiefly on honey-bees. Experience shows that, thougn 
the hungry bees may fly two or three miles, hives should be within a mile 
of the orchard or small-fruit patch. — Press Bulletin No. 8, of the Kansas 
Experiment Station. 

VALUE OF BEES UNDERESTIMATED. 

The value of the honey-bee to the horticulturist is hardly realized by 
many who are engaged in fruit-growing. The setting of fruit that will 
stay on the tree depends chiefly upon proper pollination, and in this work 
the bee is largely instrumental. There are, of course, other instrumen- 
talities, but none perhaps so effective. Experiments at the Oregon station 
with the peach, throw a good deal of light on this subject. A number of 
peach trees were forced into bloom under glass in November, and a col- 
ony of bees was placed in the house as soon as the bloom began. For 
several days a heavy fog prevented the bees from working, but on the 
first bright day that came, the bees went to work and continued at it as 
long as there was anything on the trees to work on. The result was that 
at the stoning season, the time when unfertilized fruit drops, not a peach 
fell from the trees, and the crop was so heavy that it had to be severely 
thinned. As a check test one tree was so protected that the bees could 
not get at it, and from this tree all the fruit dropped at the stoning 
period. Insects, and especially bees, which have nectar-secreting instinct 
as a motive -for labor and bloom, are an aid to pollination for which Na- 
ture seems to have provided no adequate substitute. Their office is to 
distribute pollen from flower to flower, and from tree to tree. Much of 
the complaint about fruit falling would cease if horticulturists kept bees 
in the orchard. For the protection of bees the horticulturist should never 
spray while the trees are in bloom. He owes that much to these valu- 
able assistants in his work. — Green's Fruit Grower. 

Apple and pear are among those trees which need some insect agency 
to secure a proper fertilization of the blossoms. When men plead that 
bees injure fruit by taking away the saccharine matter secreted for and 
needed by the fruit in its development, they but show their ignorance, as 
did those men a quarter of a century or more ago, when they passed a law 
in a certain township in Massachusetts, banishing bees from that town. 
The result was that little or no fruit developed in the interior of the town- 
ship, while all along the boundary fruit was as plentiful as ever. After 
this experience regarding their folly, they were glad to welcome the bees 
back again. — G. M. Doolittle. 

FLOWERS WAIT FOR BEES. 

In Bienen-Vater are given results of experiments in which netting was 
put over branches of trees at time of blooming. The time of blooming of 
blossoms on such covered limbs was - prolonged as if the blossoms were 
waiting for the bees to fertilize them. On apple-trees the time of such 
blossoms was prolonged one to three days more than the time of blossoms 



. NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 23 

uncovered. Pear-blossoms were prolonged four to five days; plum, four 
to seven days. No fruit set on the covered apple branches. — American 
Bee Journal. 

BEES NECESSARY UNDER GLASS. 

The director of the School of Horticulture, at Villorde, France, placed 
a colony of bees at the disposal of the peach-trees, under glass, at the 
time of blooming in February. The crop, previously scant, was now un- 
reasonably heavy. — La Progress Apicole. — (Gleanings.) 

HE IS CONVINCED. 

Four years ago, when I rented one of the orchards which I am now 
running, the owner had a large cherry orchard, and told me that for eight 
years he did not get a cherry. He was about to dig up the trees when 
some one advised him to try bees, which he did. The result was, that 
for tjhree or four years after he got the bees he sold his cherry crop in 
Chicago and New York for about $4,000. His idea in keeping bees was 
only to fertilize the fruit-bloom. 

I shall increase to one hundred colonies, as I have 140 acres of trees 
for them to work on. — F. L. Morrill, of California, in Gleanings, June 1, 
1899. 

BEES NECESSARY IN SQUASH FIELDS. 

Mr. Gregory, of Massachusetts, proved conclusively that the honey 
secreted in the squash flower was of no value whatever, except to entice 
insects. He says, the female blossoms of the squash are so covered and 
hidden by the tall leaves, that it is evident that the fertilizing pollen must 
be conveyed to them by the bees, to whom the squash-field appears to be 
a rich harvest-field. All of the crossing or mixing of squashes is caused 
by the pollen from the male flower of one variety being carried by the 
bees to the female flower of another variety. He further states that, if 
the bees are kept from these female blossoms by mans of netting or other- 
wise, the embryo squash, at their base, will always turn yellow and die, 
unless pollen is carried by man from male to female blossoms, as is done 
in the hybridizing of squashes to produce different varieties. The primary 
reason why a squash grows is to protect and afford nutriment to the seed, 
the use of it as food being a secondary matter. Why is honey placed in 
the flowers? To attract insects that the blossoms may be properly fer- 
tilized, primarily; and, secondly, for food for these insects. The same is 
true of cucumbers, melons, peas, pumpkins and tomatoes. 

BEES AID THE FRUIT INDUSTRY. 

In seven localities in Austria, last year, experiments on the fertilizing 
of fruit-blossoms were conducted according to a concerted plan on a variety 
of trees and shrubs, but were all too few, and fortunately the social bees 
were brought along with the fruits. Even the social native insect, like 
the social wasps and bumble-bees, are very few in spring when the fruit 
blooms, and so are absolutely inadequate to pollinate our orchard trees. 
The non-seeding of red clover for the early first crop is because the bum- 
bles-bees are too few to cross-pollinate the bloom properly. It is possible 
that in' this case the flowers are fertile to the pollen of other red clover 
blossoms, but not to their own. 



24 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

The orchardist then must have the bees. To drive them away 
would be to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. 

Again, bees never attack sound fruit. They only come when bird, 
wasp, or sultry weather, combined with over-ripeness, break the rind and 
cause the juice to exude. Possibly bees could bite open the skin of the 
fruit, but positively they never do. Yet let the juice once ooze, and the 
bees quickly hie to tree or drying-tray, and leave the little behind to show 
what was once there. 

When we remember that nearly 90 per cent of the ripe fruit is juice, 
and that the bees take this, we see that little would be left. The juice 
often oozes from very ripe fruit, and so bees are often in the vineyard to 
the great annoyance of those who would gather in the vintage. Fruit on 
the trays in the drying-yard has the skin removed, or is cut open, and so 
the bees may take most of it unless repelled by sulphuring, which is now 
generally done. We see, then, that bees are a disturbance at times, and 
annoy the orchardist greatly. Then must the apiarist be driven off. Not 
so say the European pomologists. They want the bees, and there is no 
quarrel between the two industries. Not so, say the most intelligent fruit- 
men of our State and country, for we must have the bees to aid us in time 
of bloom. What then? It may be wise to move the bees temporarily on 
rare occasions when the annoyance is most severe. If so, who should bear 
the expense? Surely, not the bee-keeper, for he was the pioneer in the 
region, and has a first, or at least an equal right. The removal is for the 
fruit-man, and he should bear the most, if not all, of the expense. But each 
should know all the facts, that bees are never harmful to flowers, but al- 
ways necessary to best success, and they are only injurious to wounded 
fruit; that if they are temporarily removed it is for the good of the fruit- 
man, and he should bear the expense. The harm is usually not great, 
and the annoyance usually almost nothing, so that if the bee-men and the 
fruit-men donate the one to the other of their choicest products, and cul- 
tivate the good-feeling, and not enmity, each may be a tremendous blessing 
to the other, and all the best of neighbors. — Prof, A. J. Cook, Los Angeles 
County, California. 

THE POLLINATION OF CLOVER. 

Prof. Chas. W. Burkett, last year, covered patches of clover heads 
six feet square with mosquito netting. He gives the results as follows: 

The result showing the number of seeds in each 100 head was as 
follows: First crop, covered, 0; uncovered, 10. Second crop, covered, 2; 
uncovered, 612. Near bumble-bees' nest, 2,300. Of course, all insects 
were excluded, but the experiment proves that insects are necessary and 
we know that bumble-bees are the principal workers in the pollination of 
clover blossoms. 

The careful experiments of Prof. Waite and others at the experiment 
stations show that the honey-bee is in the clover fields. In Germany the 
humble-bee is protected by legal enactments. With us every nest is de- 
stroyed at once after discovery. — Prof. J. L. Budd, Horticulturist, Iowa 
Agricultural College. 

CROSS-POLLINATION ADVANTAGEOUS. 

One of the laws of Nature is that the crossing of races produces off- 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 25 

spring with greater vigor, endurance, and faculty of reproduction 

Fruits succeed better when the pollen, which fertilizes the pistil, 
conies from some other blossom; and the insects are entrusted with the 
mission of transporting this pollen from one blossom to another, while 
gathering it for their own use. In some plants, fertilization would have 
been impossible without the aid of insects. For instance, some plants, 
such as willows are deciduous, having their male organs on one tree and 
their female organs on another. 

If those horticulturists who regard the bee as any enemy, could ex- 
terminate the race, they would act with as little wisdom as those who 
attempt to banish from their inhospitable premises every insectivorous 
bird which helps itself to a small part of the abundance it has aided in 
producing. — Langsroth on the Honey-Bee," as revised by Dadant. 

Prof. A. J. Cook's careful experiment in Michigan. In each particular 
case an equal number of blossoms were selected from adjacent branches. 
One lot was marked with a tag, the other surrounded by cheese-cloth. I 
can not enter into details, but these are the results: 

Covered Uncovered 
Blooms. Fruits. Fruits. 

Apple 40 15 

Apple 75 3 

Crab Apple 200 3 

Apple 160 2 9 

Pear 140 7 

Cherry 300 9 119 

Strawberries 60 9 27 

212 80 104 

123 20 36 

Raspberries 184 9 160 

Clover (red) 10 h'ds 191 

Clover (white) 10 h'ds 541 

Again, in 1894, since his removal to California, Prof. Cook made similar 
experiments with plums, cherries, and pears. Following is the result: 

Bees No{ 

Covered. Enclosed. Covered. 

Plums 3 8 

" 5 5 

Cherry 5 7 

Pears 6 8 

" 8 11 

In one experiment with the plum, Prof. Cook covered a branch, and 
when it was in bloom, and the bees working on the trees, he removed the 
sack, and keeping watch, marked the blossoms on which he saw bf>es work. 
When he ceased watching, the branch was recovered, and at length the 
four blossoms alone, on which he saw bees alight, developed into plums. 

GOOSEBERRIES. 

Among the small fruits gooseberries are absolutely dependent on in- 
sects. The failure of this crop is not so uniformly the result, as some 
suppose, of frost; cold weather at the critical time, keeping the bees with- 
in, often being the chief cause. — Prof. Frank Cheshire, an English author 
of recognized scientific standing. 

The same is true of raspberries, blackberries and currants. 



26 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

BEES IN ORCHARDS— VALUABLE. 



Albert Lane of Vorden, California, engaged in beekeeping and fruit. 
Has bees for sale, all his apiaries located in his orchards of peaches, 
cherries, and apricots. So eager are neighbors to have his bees visit 
their fruit trees that they furnish him all the locations he wants. One 
orchardist makes stands for him to place hives on. Another furnishes 
stands and a well made shed. In another orchard a large barn is given 
to his use. Another apiary had hives painted various colors under a good 
shed. The orchardist, furnished the paint and shed, to make it orna- 
mental as well as useful. All along the Sacramento valley fruit growers 
realize that to get crops of early fruit, they must have the aid of honey 
bees. — (Gleanings.) 

In Wisconsin, several times one of its most extensive apple growers 
has attended the Wisconsin State Beekeepers' Convention, offering any 
beekeeper free location for an apiary in his orchards, and offering steady 
work for owner if he wished. All this to get direct benefit of the bees 
in his fruit bloom. Cold or stormy time during open bloom, he said, and 
one-half day of good weather during open bloom, and bees located near 
by, might tell the story of a crop of apples, or failure if bees could npt 
get out. 

All the larger bearing orchards in Wisconsin now have an apiary in 
the orchard or near by. Spray before and after open bloom. 

GEORGIA HORTICULTURAL REPORT 27TH— (By W. Newell.) 

"The wind may to some extent distribute pollen, but the most impor- 
tant agency is that of insects. Various wasps, beetles, butterflies, and 
bees visit the blossoms in quest of nectar, and carry the grains of pollen 
from one to another. However, no insect so effectually accomplishes this 
distribution of the pollen as the honey bee, and by various students this 
insect is regarded as of more importance in this respect than all others 
combined. The more honey bees there are in the vicinity of the orchard 
the more thorough will be the pollination. Many fruit growers state 
positively, that the fruit yield has been materially increased after the 
introduction of several colonies of bees into their orchards. 



POLLINATION OF THE APPLE. 



By C. I. Lewis and C C Vincent, of the Oregon Agricultural College Ex- 
periment Station, Bulletin No. 104 February, 1909. 

5. Out of 87 varieties of apples worked with, 59 varieties were found 
to be self -sterile ; 15 varieties self-fertile; and 13 varieties partially self- 
fertile. 

18. Wind is a poor agent in transferring pollen from tree to tree. 
Bees and insects appear to be the principal pollen distributors. 

19. The floral envelope serves to attract the attention of the bees. 
They will, however, to a certain degree, visit blossoms in which the floral" 
envelope has been removed. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 27 

To verify our last experiment the following work was carried on. 
A 7-year-old tree, containing 1,500 blossoms, was emasculated and left 
exposed to the wind and insect visitation. The object of this experiment 
was two-fold: — First, to determine if pollen was transmitted through the 
air in sufficient quantities to insure cross-pollination; second, to determine 
if removing the floral part of the blossom would affect the visits of insects. 
The tree operated upon was located about twenty feet from another tree 
that blossomed profusely. It is generally conceded by many experimenters 
that the honey bee is attracted to the blossom by the inflorescence. The 
results obtained will be a fair index to the truth of this statemen. Out 
of the 1,500 blossoms emasculated only five set fruit. During the whole 
period that the pistils of these blossoms remained receptive, only eight 
bees visited the tree. More than twice that number was seen in one half 
hour on the tree twenty feet away. Since only a small portion of the 
emasculated blossoms set fruit, it is manifest that pollen is not transmitted 
through the air in sufficient quantities to insure cross-pollination. While 
this experiment demonstrated the fact that bees will visit trees when the 
floral part of the blossom is removed, they are not attracted in sufficient 
numbers to insure perfect pollination. It is apparent that the showy 
petals of the blossoms aid materially in attracting the bees. The blos- 
som is well supplied with nectar, and the open character of nectar makes 
it accessible to almost all insects. The bees, in trying to reach the nec- 
tar, brush against the anthers and carry away with them, on their hairy 
legs and abdomen, large quantities of pollen. The insects in visiting other 
blossoms transfer some of the foreign pollen to these pistils. Since the 
wind aids so little in cross-pollination it is evident that the various insects, 
especially the bees, are carriers of pollen from one variety to another. 

As the assurance of a crop depends upon insects as distributers of 
the pollen, it is necessary that apiaries be established in the different 
fruit sections With favorable climatic conditions and proper planting of 
varieties the bees would insure pollination. 

Eighty-seven varieties of apple bloom were selected. The blossom 
buds were covered with paper bags to keep bees and insects away until 
the bloom was closed or set. Out of this great number of bags protecting 
the bloom, 4,800 bags failed to have one set fruit. And but a few set 
where the blossoms were hand-treated. The pollen being placed with 
fine camel's hair brush, each variety having its own brush. This Bulletin 
also has a large picture of an apiary in an orchard recommending bees as 
necessary to insure pollination. 



BEES DO NOT PUNCTURE SOUND FRUIT. 



Case— Utter & Utter at Goshen, N. Y-, 1901. 
Two brothers in court against each other. One claiming his brother's 
bees ate and destroyed his peaches, claiming damages. In the lower 
court the justice decides against the beekeeper, fining him $25 and costs. 
The National Beekeepers Association took the case before the high court, 
with assistance of valuable witnesses, Mr. Frank Benton of Washington, 
D. C, O. L. Hershiser of Buffalo, N. Y., A. I. and E. R. Root of Medina, 
Ohio, and W. F. Marks, Chapinville, N. Y. Thirty witnesses had been 



28 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

examined, on both sides, when the jury gave a verdict, unanimous to the 
effect BEES DO NOT PUNCTURE SOUND FRUIT. Mr. Benton showed 
that the honeybee had a soft pliable tongue and could not puncture sound 
fruit. The inner tongue is spoon-shaped, covered with hairs. It can not 
become rigid. The bee laps its food, called nectar. Its fellers are soft 
and can not pierce anything, being organs of touch and smell. Birds and 
other insects do the puncturing, then bees may suck the wasting juices. 

BEES AND GRAPES. 

Bees have been accused of puncturing grapes and damaging same for 
the market. As in the case above, the honeybee is unable to perform 
such work. Cape May warblers, Baltimore orioles, and some wasps will 
pierce the skin of sound grapes, leaving small pinholes which later are 
visited by bees (if scarcity of honey from flowers), sucking out the wast- 
ing juices and sometimes leaving a shriveled skin. In many such cases 
the beekeeper can, in large degree, check the trouble by outside feeding 
of honey or sugar syrup, being careful that the bees can not get the feed 
very fast, just so as to keep them from the punctured decaying fruit. 
Again, doors should be screened where fruit is stored, or where fruit- 
canning is being done. City fruit stands should have mosquito-netting or 
glass over them. 



BEES DO NOT INJURE SOUND FRUIT. 



Several times complaints have been charged against bees as injuring 
fruit, and each time the National Bee-Keepers' Association has investigated 
the case, and satisfied the court the charges were not true. As a witness 
of such testimony, after the honey season, when the bees would take any 
sweets left exposed, I cut bunches of ripe, sound grapes, of six varieties, 
hung said bunches one day exposed in my home apiary of 150 colonies, 
and not a grape was injured. I then hung the grapes in an upper hive- 
body, over a strong colony, one day with the same results. Then I took 
the same bunches and punctured the skin of ten grapes in each bunch, 
left them another day to find the bees had not injured a sound grape. 
This was repeated every other day until all the grapes were opened by 
me, and in return the bees had saved the wasting juice. Bees do not 
puncture sound fruit, but some kinds of wasps and birds will puncture all 
kinds of fruit, and when punctured are not and never will be good fruit. 
So what the bees save is the better for all. A similar series of experi- 
ments I have proven with various tree and shrub fruit. — N. E. France, 
Platteville, Wis. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 



29 




Three-story observation hive; fruit in upper hive. 

One of the exhibits of bees at the Grange Fair in Wilmington, Delaware, 

Held in September, 1908. 



An exhibit at Wilmington, Dela., 1909, showing bees do not puncture 
sound fruit. In the case above hangs sound grapes, a pear and a peach. 
A card on lower side of upper hive states, "Bees do not injure sound fruit." 



30 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

In districts of California where raisin growing is a business, also 
along the southern shore of Lake Erie, where grape growing is among the 
prominent farm crops, the complaints of bees damaging grapes, in years 
favorable for overripe fruit bursting the skins, or punctured by other par- 
ties, has been quite general, so long as no honey-yielding flowers were 
open. At such times the beekeeper can abate the trouble greatly by feed- 
ing a little outside, but not so bees get the feed very fast. 

Again, at fairs where an apiary is located near by, and bees are work- 
ing at stands of sweets, or waste material back of eating houses, a little 
feeding of the bees a few days will abate the trouble. Screen such places. 



POISON SPRAYING KILLING BEES. 



(See Ohio Bulletin 68, pages 48 to 53). 

A mixture of Paris green, 4 oz. to 50 gal. of water, sprayed on a Lom- 
bard plum tree, in full bloom, at 2 p. m. The tree was then enclosed with 
cloth and netting. A hive bees was set inside enclosure. By night several 
hundred bees were either dead or dying. Analysis were made of same and 
arsenic found present in each, even after the bodies were washed before 
testing, the poison being inside of abdomens. The second experiment was 
made on apple trees May 4, 5 and 6; dead bees under the trees were pick- 
up, with similar analysis. These experiments were greatly hindered by 
frequent rains, but concludes the report thus: 

"In summing up the matter I can see no other conclusion that can be 
drawn from the results of my experiments than that the bees are liable 
to be poisoned by spraying the bloom of fruit trees, and that all bloom 
must have fallen from the trees before the danger will have ceased. We 
now have conclusive proof of the effect on bees of the use of arsenical 
poisons in orchards while the trees are in bloom." 



POISON SPRAYING OF OPEN BLOOM KILLS THE FRUIT. 



(Green's Fruit Grower). 

Still more recent investigations show that it is not necessary to spray 
for the codling moth when the trees are in bloom, but that it is a POSI- 
TIVE DETRIMENT to the fruit to spray at such time. Professor Beach 
of the New York Experimental Station experimented in two orchards in 
Ontario county and two in Niagara county. He sprayed some trees in all 
the orchards and left two others contigous without spraying. All the trees 
were full of bloom. On the trees sprayed but few apples set, a large pro- 
portion of the blossoms falling before the fruit set, while on those not 
sprayed, a very large crop of fruit grew. To make this more conclusive, 
he selected trees full of blossoms alike on both sides and sprayed one 
side of each tree. Result: On the sides sprayed the fruit set very spar- 
ingly, while on the opposite side not sprayed, a heavy burden of fruit 
grew. He concludes that where you fairly hit an apple blossom with 
Paris green strong enough to kill insects it will certainly kill the blossom. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 31 

In the Vermont Experimental Station report No. 12, page 205, F. A. 
Waugh states: 

"Furthermore, it may be said that spraying, when trees are in bloom, 
is entirely useless. It is a waste of time and spraying material. It may 
be directly injurious to the blossoms and it may kill the bees. There is 
everything against it, and nothing in its favor. SPRAY BEFORE BLOS- 
SOMING and after the petals fall, but NEVER WHILE THE BLOSSOMS 
ARE OPEN." 



MORE ABOUT THAT CASE WHERE 300 COLONIES WERE POISONED 
FROM THE SPRAYING OF FRUIT TREES WHILE IN BLOOM. 



Five yards here are located within a radius of one and a half miles 
of the orchard where the spray was used, and they all went down at that 
time, and no other yards in the valley showed any symptoms. That was 
proof enough for me; but I realize that definite facts are needed, and I 
should have liked to have an analysis of the poison. What facts I can 
give are as follows: 

The man who sprayed his trees used 2 lbs. arsenate of lead to a bar- 
rel of water. He sprayed just before the last blooms dropped the petals. 
Five days after the spraying I noted that all was not well, but did not 
look into the hives until on the seventh day, when I found 14 dead colonies 
and took note that three-fourths of the strong hives had dwindled to about 
the strength of a weak three-frame nucleus. In others I found only the 
queen and fifty to one hundred workers alive. In all cases the queens 
seemed to live right up to the last. I concluded that, since the queen is 
fed predigested food, only bees not yet poisoned lived long enough to feed 
the queen. Finally she probably ate some of the poisoned honey, for I 
caged about ten of these queens, which I found left with only a few bees, 
and took them off to another yard to put in some three-frame nuclei I had 
at the time, and half of them were dead when I got there; and of the five 
introduced, only one lived. 

On the tenth day some of the hives which had been as strong as three- 
frame nuclei had dwindled ^o as to have almost no living brood, and about 
enough bees to make a one-frame nucleus. I took the queens from these 
and used them with perfect success to re-queen three-frame nuclei in other 
yards. To their bees I gave virgins and cells, and in that way made good 
use of them as queen-raising nuclei. Since the poison hit out queen 
raising yard it set us back with our queens, and we noted that many of 
the cells which were being sealed at that time did not hatch, and showed 
evidence of the poison when cut open later. 

In regard to distance, the bees seem to have died almost as much at 
a distance of one and one-half miles as those located only a few hundred 
yards from the orchard. O. B. METCALFE. 

Mesilla Park, New Mexico, June 20. 



DANGEROUS PRACTICE. 

♦ . 



Spraying fruit trees while in bloom (page 48) with arsenical mixtures 
is dangerous, and in fair weather is liable not only to kill the bees that 



32 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

frequent the bloom, but also to destroy the young brood that are being 
fed at that time. Spraying should not be done until all the bloom has 
fallen. — Prof. F. M. Webster, Bulletin 68, Ohio Agricultural Experiment 
Station. 

Fruit trees should never be sprayed when in bloom, on account of the 
liability of poisoning honey bees or other insects useful as cross-fertilizers. 
— Farmers' Bulletin No. 19, United States Department of Agriculture, by 
C. L. Marlott, M. S. 



INJURY TO BLOSSOMS. 



The trees should not be sprayed while in blossom, for the spray may 
injure the delicate parts of the flower, and the poison may kill the bees 
and other insects that play an important part in fertilizing the blossoms. 
— Bulletin No. 86, New Series, New York Agricultural Experiment Station, 
by S. A. Beach and W. Paddock. 

Never spray a fruit tree while it is in bloom. You may injure the 
delicate stigma, and prevent pollination, and there is also danger of kill- 
ing the bees. — Bulletin No. 36, Missouri Agricultural Station, by I. M. Sted- 
man. 



IT SHOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR. 



Spraying fruit trees in early spring to prevent the ravages of various 
insects is becoming very common. Spraying trees while in bloom is very 
likely to poison the nectar and destroy the honey-bee. This has been 
done in several cases. Not only have the matured bees been poisoned, but 
the brood has also been destroyed. The fact is very apparent that fruit- 
growers are nearly, or quite, as much interested in the presence of bees 
as are the bee-keepers. Pomologists then may well join hands with the 
apiarist in demanding and securing a law making it a grave misdemeanor 
to spray fruit trees while they are in bloom. — Bulletin No. 26, Division of 
Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Prof. L. H. Bailey of Cornell University says: "The grower himself 
must decide when and how often to spray, because he should know what 
enemies he desires to reach. If he has bud-moth he should spray with 
the first swelling of the buds, and if he has plum scale he should spray 
in the winter. But, leaving the special insects aside, it is safe to say that 
for the two staple enemies — the apple-scab and the coddling-moth — at least 
two sprayings should be given. I am not yet convinced that spraying when 
the tree is dormant has any appreciable effect in destroying the apple- 
scab fungus. As a general statement I should say, spray twice upon 
apples and pears — once just as the fruit buds and breaks open, but be- 
fore the flowers expand, and again just as the last blossoms fall. In both 
cases I should use a combination of Bordeaux mixture and Paris green. 
The first spraying is for the scab fungus in particular, and for this Bor- 
deaux is used; but the Paris green will most likely be of service in destroy- 
ing various leaf-eating insects. — Bulletin 101, Cornell University Agricul- 
tural Experiment Station, by L. H. Bailey. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 33 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INSECT INVESTIGATION. 



A. L. Quaintanee, insect investigator, Washington, D. C, writes the 
following letter March 8. 1909: 

"I think there is no shadow of doubt but that this practice will result 
in the death of the bees visiting flowers. The extent of the injury to 
neighboring hives will depend somewhat upon the character of the weather, 
as influencing the activity of the bees. Several experiments have been 
made on this subject, and it is the accumulated experience of practical 
bee-keepers generally that spraying in bloom does not poison bees. I re- 
fer you to Insect Life, vol. 7, p. 132; American Bee Journal, 1897, No. 14, 
pp. 211-212; also Geneva, N. Y., experiments. There is, however, but lit- 
tle if any necessity for spraying fruit trees in bloom. With the exception 
of canker worms, there are no insects at present known to me which can 
not as well or better be treated by application of arsenicals immediately 
before blossoming or after the petals have fallen." 



LAWS ON POISON SPRAYING. 
« 



Several states have laws upon poison spraying on open fruit bloom 
I give some of same: 

LAWS OF NEW YORK. 

Became a law March 22, 1900, with the approval of the Governor. 
Passed, three-fifths being present. 

Sec. 1. Any person who shall spray with, or apply in any way poison 
or any poisonous substance, to fruit trees while the same are in blossom, 
is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dol- 
lars nor more than fifty dollars; provided, however, that nothing in this 
section shall prevent the directors of the experimental stations at Ithaca 
and Geneva from conducting experiments in the application of poison and 
spraying mixtures to fruit trees while in blossom. 

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 

LAWS OP MICHIGAN. . 

Act of 1895. Approved May 4. 

Sec. 1. That it shall be the duty of every owner, possessor or occupier 
of an orchard, nursery or vineyard, or of land where fruit trees or vines 
are grown within this state, to spray with a poisonous solution as dis- 
infectant, and of sufficient strength to destroy such injurious insects or 
contagious disease, all fruit trees or vines grown on such lands which 
may be infected with any contagious disease known to be injurious to fruit 
or fruit trees or vines; provided, that if such trees or vines are infested 
with the San Jose or other scale insects, such trees or vines shall be either 
effectually sprayed or destroyed. Provided also, that no such spraying 
shall be done while said fruit trees or vines are in blossom, except in case 
of canker worm. 



34 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

LAWS OF COLORADO. 

Chapter 55. Laws of 1897. 

Sec. 8. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to spray fruit 
trees while in bloom with any substance injurious to bees. 

Sec. 9. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shall 
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punihsed 
by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than 10 days 
nor more than 100 days, or by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than 
$100. Any justice of the peace, or district or county- courts of the respec- 
tive counties, shall have jurisdiction to try any case arising under the 
provisions of this Act. 



SPRAYING FRUIT TREES IN BLOOM ILLEGAL IN CANADA. 



This practice is prohibited by an Act of Parliament assented to in 
1892, the provisions of which are as follows: 

Sec. 1. No person in spraying or sprinkling fruit trees during the 
period within which such trees are in full bloom shall use, or cause to be 
used, any mixture containing Paris green or any other poisonous sub- 
stance injurious to bees. 

Sec. 2. Any person contravening the provisions of this Act shall, on 
summary conviction thereof, before a justice of the peace, be subject to 
a penalty of not less than $1 or more than $5 with or without costs of 
prosecution, and in case of a fine or a fine and costs being awarded, and of 
the same being upon conviction forthwith paid, the justice may commit 
the offender to the common jail, there to be imprisoned for any term not 
exceeding thirty days, unless the fine and costs are sooner paid. 

The best fruit growers consider spraying, during the period of full 
bloom, as a useless waste of material, and harmful to the setting of fruit. 
It is universally condemned by entomologists in every part of America. 
The recommended formulas as sent out by both the Federal and Provin- 
cial Departments of Agriculture state distinctly to spray apple orchards 
with Bordeaux and Paris green: (1) Just as leaf buds are expanding; (2) 
just before blossoms open; (3) just after blossoms fall; (4) every ten 
days later if required. 

Bee-keepers and fruit growers are both urged to see that this harm- 
ful practice is stopped. 



PEAR BLIGHT. 



The Cause of Pear Blight; Some Varieties Immune to It; The Opinion of 

An Extensive Fruit Grower. 

In the first place, I have an orchard of 1,800 fruit trees, just coming 
in bearing of which 900 are pear trees. I have 13 colonies of bees, and 
am on a deal for 16 more. Now, we have had a very wet season, and, 
only for a dry winter and spring, crops would not have been planted. 
Nearly all pear trees near here on black soil are badly blighted. My pear 
orchard is on high clay land; and, although some of the trees were white 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 35 

with blossoms, I have no blight whatever. I have only such varieties as 
are not subject to blight — Keiffer, Garber, Duchess; and now to have good 
fruit of any kind we must have bees or some insects to mix pollen. Take 
away bees and other insects, and we should have practically no good fruit. 
Major Holsinger of Kansas has Kieffer and Leconte pear trees, planted 15 
years, side by side. Bees have hummed from one tree to the other. Re- 
sult: Leconte trees are all dead from blight; Keiffer are sound, and bear- 
ing heavily every year. Now, if men will plant the right varieties on 
suitable land they need not worry about trees or blight. Too rich soil will 
cause blight to any variety; but some varieties are more proof against it 
than others. 

Before I planted a commercial orchard, I read everything I could find 
on pear culture, and asked many questions through different papers, some 
being answered by professors in horticulture. I also visited many or- 
chards, large and small. 

Some growers said that, if I had never planted a Bartlett, Idaho or 
Leconte, I would never have been bothered with the blight, or at least 
not so soon. I arrived at these conclusions: 

1. That pear blight is a contagious disease, and when once started in 
an orchard it will spread if not cut out very promptly. 

2. That it is a disease of the sap, and that lots of supposed blight is 
death to the tree only from overbearing and other causes. 

Pear trees are rapid growers and the wood is very sappy. If I cut off 
a limb from any healthy pear tree in June or July and lay it in the sun, 
it will turn nearly coal black, so that even experienced pear-growers would 
say blight when there was no blight. 

When I planted only such varieties as are not subject to blight, I did 
not mean that they were entirely proof against the disease. I have also 
had Lincoln and some others, but did not wish to confuse a beginner with 
too many varieties. These three are the best. I found where Kieffers 
blighted on clay land, they had nearly always been heavily fertilized, and 
from many other observations which are too long to discuss here. I finally 
decided that, if I planted only such varieties on high clay land as are not 
so apt to blight, give them no manure, nor cultivate them late in the sea- 
son, and not plant any varieties that are bad blighters, I should not get 
the blight started; or if it did start I could control it better. So far my 
orchard proves I am right. 

This has been the worst year for blight I have ever seen; have to- 
day examined my orchard of nine hundred trees, and now make this offer 
if Mr. Gray doubts statements concerning it: I will deposit money in the 
bank at Williamsfield, sufficient to pay his fare to and from that place, 
meet him at the station, and show him my orchard; and if he can find one 
single twig on any of my nine hundred trees blighted, then I will pay all 
his expenses; but if he finds them all entirely free from blight, then he 
pays his own expenses. I can also take him to an orchard of several hun- 
dred trees only a mile from Williamsfield, on rich black soil, nearly ruin- 
ed this year by blight. I make this offer in good faith. 

Many made the mistake of planting all kinds at high prices — among 
them a few Lecontes or Bartletts, which started blight and gave it to 
others. I planted only one-year two-foot trees, as they will, I believe, 
make healthier trees than larger ones. 

If we had not bees or other insects, we could not raise pears success- 
fully. "Why blame the bees?" 



36 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

The pear, being a very rapid grower on only moderately fertile soils, 
if stimulated by barn yard manure or any fertilizer containing an abund- 
ance of nitrogen, it will cause the tree to produce an unnatural growth, 
and render it subject to inoculation by said bacteria or germs. By so 
stimulating year trees, especially of bad blighting varieties, these same 
germs will originate without any inoculation whatever. This I have proven 
to my own satisfaction and by my own experience; and have my orchard 
free from blight, though blight was all around me, to prove my theory 
correct so far. 

After having read carefully all I can find on blight bacteria, I have yet 
to see a single case where a bee has been examined and found to carry 
bacteria. So, let us not pass judgment on the bee until all the evidence 
is in, both pro and con. So far, all evidence against it is purely circum- 
stantial and light in weight as experience shows; for in a season of fine 
dry weather, when the bees are permitted to work on blossoms all through 
bloom, and if weather continues dry, blight seldom spreads at all; but in 
wet seasons like last year, when the bees are prevented from visiting the 
blossoms, much blight may be expected. J. E. JOHNSON. 

Williamsfield, 111. 



I do not believe that bees scatter the blight, for many trees blight and 
die long before they bloom. My observations lead me to believe the blight 
is a sap disease, not caused by bees or any other kind of insects. 

Atwood, 111. J. W. C. GRAY. 



The very fact that young trees that have never been in bloom, and 
which bees have never visited or been near, are just as badly blighted as 
the old trees, goes to show that the sources of the disease are due to some 
agency outside of the bees. As ants are very numerous in warm coun- 
tries it is reasonable to assume they play a very important part in the 
spread of pear blight in California. E. R. ROOT. 



ADDITIONAL PROOF THAT BEES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH 

PEAR BLIGHT. 



It appears strange that an intelligent community of pear growers 
should accuse honey-bees of disseminating the blight. That the all-wise 
Creator would create so useful an insect, and let it be the means of spread- 
ing disease and death while pollenizing the bloom to insure the setting of 
the fruit, is increditable. If bees spread the disease, why do trees die with 
it that have never bloomed? 

About twenty-five years ago, every pear tree in this vicinity blighted, 
and many died. One morning I was admiring a fine pear tree. Its leaves 
were green and shiny. At noon I was surprised to see its branches black 
and withering. No one knew whence the blight came or whither it went; 
for, like an Arab, it silently folded its tent and departed, and has not ap- 
peared here since. We had a Flemish-Beauty pear tree that was killed to 
the ground with blight; but a sprout came up above the graft, and bore 
four bushels of lovely pears this year. 

About ten years ago, while traveling through Northwest Florida, I 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 37 

greatly admired the pear orchards — row upon row of fine trees without a 
break. The blight came and destroyed them. A grower told the writer 
that, whether trees were cultivated or uncultivated, mulched or irrigated, 
they died all the same. I had in Florida a row of four Leconte pear trees 
and one Keiffer. The Lecontes were blighted, killed to the ground. Two 
sent up very strong shoots. The others were entirely dead. I had fertil- 
ized these trees abundantly, and they made great growth, and bore heavily 
— that is the Lecontes; but the Keiffer grew slowly, and bore heavily. If 
the bees carry blight, why didn't they carry it from the Lecontes to the 
Keiffers? 

In the future I'll not cultivate nor disturb the soil under my pear trees, 
for I noticed trees growing in yards, that were tramped around, never cul- 
tivated or fertilized, didn't blight. I may spread under them ashes and 
lime, or a coating of decayed leaves, and turn them over to the care of the 
Almighty. 

Peoria, 111., October, 1902. MRS. L. HARRISON. 



THE BEE AND PEAR BLIGHT; THE SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA. 



Trouble arouse in 1902 between the pear growers on the one side and 
the bee men on the other, in the vicinity of Hanford, Cal., a great fruit- 
growing region near the center of the state. The first mentioned alleged 
that the blight that was killing the trees was scattered by the bees, be- 
cause the microbes causing the disease, and which they claimed was in 
the nectaries of the flowers of affected trees, were scattered by the bees 
to the nectaries of flowers of healthy trees. 

As a member of the National Bee-Keepers' Association, I appeared at 
the scene of the trouble, in behalf of the bee-keepers. The result of our 
meeting was that a compromise was agreed on, by which, for the purpose 
of experiment, all bees in a given vicinity were to be removed by the bee- 
men voluntarily for one season, to determine whether the spread of pear 
blight could be mitigated. 

When I left, there was good feeling. 

I was assured, while on the ground, that pear blight is something that 
comes and goes in spite of the bees. This admission was made by some 
of the fair-minded pear men. If that be the case, the terrible blight that 
has devastated the vicinity of some of the best bearing trees will disappear 
of its own accord, and in the course of a few years these conflicting rela- 
tions between the two industries will be forgotten. 

It will be remembered that the bee and fruit men were preparing for a 
conflict; that the latter averred that they would set out poison if the bee 
men did not remove their bees from the vicinity of the pear trees; and 
the National Bee-Keepers' Association was appealed to, and, as an officer 
of that association, the writer appeared on the field to see what sort of 
compromise could be effected. The result of this visit was that a truce 
was declared, and the bee-keepers for experimental purposes, decided to 
remove their bees from the infected regions — at least during the time the 
trees were in bloom; but in spite of the fact that the majority of bee-keepers 
kept this agreement in good faith, there would be an occasional bee-keeper, 
even among the fruit growers, who would still leave his bees in the old 



38 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

location. It was evident that, unless everyone complied with the proposi- 
tion, no benefit would accrue. 

One of the largest pear growers in California told me that the pear 
men themselves were largely responsible for the spreading of the disease. 

It is evident that all the fruit growers will have to take unusual pre- 
caution to examine every twig in their orchards, and cut out the diseased 
portions. The failure of one pear grower will put in jeopardy the interest 
of all the growers in his vicinity, to say nothing of the fearful damage 
among his own trees. 

I omitted to mention that Dr. Waite says that the pruning-knife or 
shears must be dipped in some disinfecting medium every time it cuts off 
a limb of a tree. It would be monstrous foolishness to scatter the blight 
from tree to tree in the very act of preventing such spread. 

Of course, Dr. Waite's new plan may not prove to be entirely effec- 
tive, from want of perfect co-operation and thoroughness. If they fail to 
take the means at hand, then the bee men can hardly be held accountable 
before the courts. E. R. ROOT. 



F. E. Brown, secretary of the Central California Bee-Keepers' Associa- 
tion, immediately made an investigation and reported his findings. He 
visited the Downing orchards and several others in that vicinity. True 
several of the large trees were protected by the netting so that no bees 
could get at the blossoms; and there is plenty of blight and no more fruit 
upon these trees than on the trees not protected. The reason is, the fruit 
was not pollenized, and the blossom with the stem dropped off. 



ALFALFA 



TROUBLE BETWEEN BEE MEN AND ALFALFA GROWERS IN 

NEVADA. 



It is a well-known fact that Nevada produces many carloads of fine 
alfalfa honey. So much of it is shipped out of the state that the alfalfa- 
growers and the cattle-men are getting their heads together, arguing that 
all this sweetness is just so much saccharine matter taken out of their 
hay. One of the largest ranchers is a representative in the legislature of 
Nevada, and it appears that efforts are on foot to get a law passed at the 
next session of the legislature, prohibiting bee-keepers from locating bee- 
yards within sight of the alfalfa fields. This would practically mean the 
wiping out of all bee-keeping interests in a very important honey-producing 
state, and. besides setting a dangerous precedent for other states. The 
argument made by the cattle-men and ranchers is this: Carload after car- 
load of alfalfa honey is being shipped out of the state. The best hay is 
the first cutting, and the first crop of blossoms is also the best for the 
bee-keeper. They argue "that a ton of honey probably represents the es- 
sence of 200 tons of alfalfa, and that the hay is just that much poorer in 
sacchine matter. * * * It stands to reason that you cannot take all of 
this honey out of the hay, and still have it as rich in saccharine matter." 
In this day of progress and scientific investigation, it is staggering to hear 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 39 

such talk. Of course, the bee j keepers are ridiculing such sheer nonsense, 
for it cannot he based on anything else than consummate ignorance and 
prejudice. It is a well-known fact that red-clover hay will not develop 
properly unless there are honey-bees or humble-bees in the vicinity; that 
attempts were made to grow the plant in Australia, but it failed miserably 
until bumble-bees were introduced. Exactly the same thing will apply in 
growing alfalfa. While it would be too much to claim that this kind of 
hay cannot be grown without bees, yet it is safe to say that a much poorer 
crop would be the result without them. We can also assert, without fear 
of successful contradiction, that the best scientific men in the world, as 
well as professors in all the agriculture colleges, can show that the asser- 
tion of the cattle-men is utterly without foundation. 

The animus of the whole thing is evidently jealousy. Whenever one 
class of citizens make a little money, there are plenty of people who will 
be envious of them. 

I do not know what the National Association is doing or has done about 
the matter; but I do not believe that its 1,500 members will allow any such 
foolish and ignorant legislation to come to pass without a vigorous fight. 
Like the other case reported in these columns, the whole thing is so ridic- 
ulous that I think the bee-keepers will be easily able to thwart any efforts 
that may be made to pass a law of this kind. But we must not be over- 
confident. We must be alert, and ready to know what the opposition pro- 
poses to do, and meet them half way. E. R. ROOT. 



H. W. SMITHKONS, North Amherst, Ohio. 
You speak of the butterflies on alfalfa, and say you were told they "eat 
the blossom." If you had stopped to remember that butterflies have no 
mouth-parts to eat, like grasshoppers, which often eat off clover blossoms, 
but that they have a tiny slender tongue for licking or sucking up sweets, 
I don't think you would have believed that report. 



YELLOW BUTTERFLIES NOT ENEMIES OF THE ALFALFA PLANT. 

^ 

Mr. Root: — The yellow butterflies (species of colios) never injure 
clover of any kind, nor any plants. They sip nectar from flowers, and may 
and do aid some in pollination. The caterpillars do at times eat from the- 
clovers; but so far as I have ever observed, they are never abundant enough 
to do any considerable harm. I know of only two serious enemies of al- 
falfa — gophers and goldthread, or dodder. A. J. COOK. 

Claremont, Calif. 



(It was probably a mistake in supposing that the yellow butterflies had 
any blighting effect on the blossoms of alfalfa. The fact that they swarm- 
ed over the fields in countless thousands, so that the air was yellow with 
them over the fields shows that they were after the nectar as well as the 
bees, and to the extent that they robbed the bees of just so much honey, 
to that extent they were an enemy to the bee-keeper. We are obliged to 
Professor Cook and others for the correction. E. R. ROOT. 



40 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

HOW BUTTERFLIES INDIRECTLY DO DAMAGE TO ALFALFA. 

» 

While the butterflies themselves probably do a great deal of damage 
by sucking the nectar from the blossoms, thus depriving the bees of large 
quantities of honey, the worst damage is done by the worms which hatch 
from the eggs laid by the butterflies. They are something like a web 
worm, and are very destructive here some seasons, not only eating prac- 
tically all the blossoms, and so destroying all chances of a seed crop, but 
they also do much damage to the hay crop by eating a large proportion 
of the leaves. E. S. WEBSTER. 

Hutchinson, Kan., February 27. 



LAWS 



WISCONSIN. 

The Governor may appoint for a term of two years a State Inspector 
of Apiaries. Said inspector shall, when notified of existence of disease 
known as Foul Brood among apiaries ,examine all such as are reported, 
and all others in the same locality, and ascertain whether or not such dis- 
ease exists, and if satisfied of its existence shall give the owner or person 
who has care of such apairies full instructions as to manner of treating 
them. 

Within a reasonable time after making such examination, the inspector 
shall make another examination thereof, and if the condition of any of 
them is such as in his judgment renders it necessary, he may burn all 
the colonies of bees and all the comb necessary to prevent the spread of 
the disease. 

Such inspector shall, before such burning, give the notice provided for 
in and otherwise proceed pursuant to the provisions of section 1492, b. 
The inspector shall make, at the close of each calendar year, a report to 
the Governor, stating the number of apiaries visited, the number of those 
diseased and treated, the number of colonies of bees destroyed and of the 
expense incurred in the performance of his duties. Said inspector shall 
receive four dollars for each day actually and necessarily spent in the per- 
formance of his duties and be reimbursed the money expended by him 
in defraying expenses; provided, that total expenditures for such purposes 
shall not exceed seven hundred dollars per year. 

Sale of a Diseased Apiary, Etc. Vol. 2, Chap. 187, Section 4605a. — 
Any owner of a diseased apiary of honey made or taken from such an apiary, 
or appliances taken from such an apiary, who shall sell, barter or give 
away any such apiary, honey or appliances, or bees from such an apiary, 
expose other bees to the dangers of contracting such disease, or refuse 
to allow the inspector of apiaries to inspect such apiary, honey or ap- 
pliances shall be fined not less than fifty dollors nor more than one hun- 
dred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month 
nor more than two months. — Sec. 4, chapter 150, 1897. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 41 

NEW YORK. 

Sec. 80. — The prevention of Disease Among Fees. — No person shall 
keep in his apiary any colony of hees affected with a contagious malady 
known as foul brood or black brood; and every bee-keeper when he be- 
comes aware of the existence of either of such disease among his bees, 
shall immediately notify the commissioner of agriculture of the existence 
of such disease. 

Sec. 81. — Duties of the Commissioner. — The commissioner of agricul- 
ture shall immediately upon receiving notice of the existence of foul brood 
or black brood among the bees in any locality, send some competent per- 
son or persons to examine the apiary or apiaries reported to him as being 
affected, and all the other apiaries in the immediate locality of the apiary 
or apiaries so reported; if foul brood or black brood is found to exist in 
them, the person or persons so sent by the commissioner of agriculture 
shall give the owners or caretakers of the diseased apiary or apiaries full 
instructions how to treat said cases. The commissioner of agriculture shall 
cause said apiary or apiaries to be visited from time to time as he may 
deem best and if after proper treatment, the said bees shall not be cured 
of the disease known as foul brood or black brood then he may cause the 
same to be destroyed in such manner as may be necessary to prevent the 
spread of the said disease. For the purpose of enforcing this act the 
commissioner of agriculture, his agents, employes, appointees or counsel, 
shall have access, ingress and egress to all places where bees or honey 
or appliances used in apiaries may be, which it is believed are in any way 
affected with the said disease of foul brood or black brood or where it is 
believed any commodity is offered or exposed for sale in violation of the 
provisions of this act. No owner or caretaker of a diseased apiary, honey 
or appliances shall sell, barter or give away any bees, honey or appliances 
from said diseased apiary, which shall expose other bees to the danger of 
said diseases, nor refuse to allow the said commissioner of agriculture, or 
the person or persons appointed by him to inspect said apiary, honey, or 
appliances, and do such things as the said commissioner of agriculture or 
the person or persons appointed by him shall deem necessary for the 
eradication of said diseases. Any person who disregards or violates any 
of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than thirty dollars nor more than one hun- 
dred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than one 
month nor more than two months, or by both fine and imprisonment. 

AGENTS— BEE INSPECTION WORK. 

Appointed under the provisions of chapter 33 of the General Laws, as 
amended by chapter 223 of the Laws of 1899 and chapter 214 of the Laws 
of 1902. 

First Division — Wheeler D. Wright, agent, Altamont, N. Y. 

Second Division — N. D. West, agent, Middleurg, N. Y. 

Third Division — Charles Stewart, agent, Sammonsville, N. Y. 

Fourth Division — Mortimer Stevens, Pennellville, N. Y. 



MICHIGAN. 
(Act No. 66, Public Acts, 1901. 
Section 1. The Dairy and Food Commission upon receipt of a certified 



42 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

copy of the record of the Michigan State Bee-Keepers 'Association, by the 
secretary of said association, showing that a majority of the members of 
said association recommended the appointment of an inspector of apiaries, 
shall appoint a State inspector of apiaries. Said inspector shall be re- 
sponsible to the Dairy and Food Commissioner and shall comply with such 
rules and regulation as the Dairy and Food Commissioner shall from time 
to time prescribe for the carrying out of the work of said State inspector. 

Sec. 2. The Dairy and Food Commissioner shall, when notified in 
writing by the owner of an apiary or by three disinterested taxpayers in 
the vicinity of the apiary, cause the inspector to examine such apiaries as 
are reported and all others in the same locality not reported, and ascertain 
whether or not the disease known as foul brood or other contagious dis- 
ease exists in such apiaries, and if satisfied of the existence of foul brood, 
he shall give the owner or care-taker of the diseased apiaries full instruc- 
tions how to treat said case as in the inspector's judgment seems best. 

Sec. 3. The inspector who shall be the sole judge may visit all dis- 
eased apiaries a second time and if need be burn all colonies of bees and 
combs that may be found not cured of foul brood or other contagious dis 
eases. 

Sec. 4. If the owner of a diseased apiary, honey or appliances shall 
knowingly or willfully sell, barter, or give away any bees, honey or appli- 
ances, or expose other bees to the danger of said disease or refuse to al- 
low said inspector to inspect such apiary, honey or appliances, said own- 
ers shall on conviction before a justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of 
not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or not less 
than one month's imprisonment in the county jail, nor more than two 
months' imprisonment. 

Sec. 5. In addition to such individual reports as are required under 
this act by the inspector of apiaries, he shall make an annual report to 
the Dairy and Food Commissioner, giving the number of the apiaries visit- 
ed, the number of diseased apiaries found, the number of colonies treated, 
also the number of colonies destroyed by fire, and an itemized account of 
his transportation expenses with affidavit annexed thereto. 

Sec. 6. There is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the State 
treasury not otherwise appropriated a sum not exceeding five hundred dol- 
lars per year for the suppression of foul brood among bees in Michigan. 
The inspector shall receive five dollars per day and actual transportation 
expenses for actual time served, which sum shall not exceed the money 
hereby appropriated, to be paid by the State treasurer upon warrants 
drawn by the Auditor General and approved by the Dairy and Food Com- 
missioner. 



MISSOURI. 
APIARIES— INSPECTION. 

AN ACT to provide for the appointment of a state inspector of apiaries, and 
to regulate the duties thereof; providing a penalty for disposing of, or 
importing into this state diseased honey or bees, or for hindering the 
inspector in the fulfillment of his duties, with an emergency clause. 
Section 1. Inspector of bees — appointment — term — qualification. 
Sec. 2. Duty of inspector. 
Sec. 3. May enter premises to perform duty. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 43 

Sec. 4. Report, to whom made — to contain what? 

Sec. 5. Salary. 

Sec. 6. Owner of diseased bees not to sell. 

Sec. 7. Emergency. 
Be it Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows: 

Section 1. The state board of agriculture of the State of Missouri 
shall appoint a state inspector of apiaries to aid and assist in the develop- 
ment and protection of the honey industry in the State of Missouri, and for 
the prevention and suppression of contagious or infectious diseases among 
honey bees, such as foul brood, black brood, paralysis, etc., which is said to 
exist at the present time among some of the apiaries of the state. Said 
inspector of apiaries shall be a practical apiarist, and shall give to the said 
board of agriculture, before his appointment, satisfactory evidence of his 
practical knowledge of handling bees and of their diseases, and shall hold 
his office for the term of two years, unless removed for cause. 

Sec. 2. Said inspector shall, whon notified of the existence of the 
disease known as foul brood, or other infectious disease among apiaries, 
examine such reported apiaries and all others, in the same locality, and if 
satisfied of the existence of foul brood, or any other infectious disease, shall 
give to the owner or person having charge of any such apiary full instruc- 
tions as to the manner of treating them. Within a reasonable time after 
making the first examination, the inspector shall make a second examina- 
tion, and if the conditions of any of the colonies affected is such as, in 
his judgment, renders it necessary, he may personally treat the disease, or, 
if in his opinion, it is necessary to prevent further spread of the dis- 
ease, and the owner refuses to treat them according to the instructions of 
said inspector, then the inspector may burn or otherwise destroy such dis- 
eased bees, comb or other material that might cause the spread of the in- 
fection. 

Sec. 3. Said inspector shall have the right to enter any premises 
where bees are kept, for the performance of his duties. 

Sec. 4. The inspector shall make a full report to the secretary of the 
board of agriculture at least once each year, stating the number of apiaries 
inspected, the number found to be diseased, and the number treated, and 
such other information as he may deem important. The secretary of the 
board of agriculture shall publish, in his annual report, or otherwise, such 
of the information as he deems of importance to the apiarists of the state. 

Sec. 5. Said inspector shall receive four dollars for each day actually 
and necessarily spent in the performance of his duties, and shall be re- 
imbursed for the money expended by him in defraying necessary traveling 
expenses: Provided, the total expenditure for such purposes shall not ex- 
ceed one thousand dollars in any one year: Provided further, that the 
said inspector shall render to the board of agriculture an itemized account 
of his per diem and expenses, and upon approval of the same by the 
executive committee of the board of agriculture, the president and secre- 
tary of the board are instructed to draw a warrant upon any available 
funds for the amounts allowed. 

Sec. 6. Any owner of a diseased apiary, or any person, persons, com- 
pany or corporation who shall knowingly sell, barter, give away or import 
into this state any colony or colonies of bees, honey or other article in- 
fected with disease, or expose other bees to the danger of contracting such 
disease, or refuse to allow the apiary inspector to inspect or treat such 
apiary, honey or other articles so infected, or shall resist, impede or hin- 



44 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL, RIGHTS 

der him in any way in the discharge of his duties, under the provisions of 
this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than 
ten nor more than twenty-five dollars for each offense. 

Sec. 7. It being necessary to treat the diseases herein provided for 
in the spring or summer, in order that satisfactory results may be obtained, 
creates an emergency within the meaning of the Constitution, and this act 
shall go into force and effect upon its passage and approval. 

Approved March 8, 1907. 



NEBRASKA. 



(a) Laws of Nebraska (Chap. 3, Act 1885, Chap. 8a, Ann'd Stat. Neb.. 
1901), makes it unlawful for anyone to keep or have in possession in this 
state, any honey bees, brood comb, or honey known to possess or to be in- 
fected with the disease known as foul brood, or with any other infectious 
or contagious disease peculiar to bees or honey, or to keep or have in 
possession any bee hive or other receptacle in which any foul brood, dis i 
eased bees, or infected honey is known to have been kept. 

(b) Destruction, Penalty. — Any honey bees, brood comb, or honey own- 
ed or kept or found !in this state, known to be affected or infected; and 
any bee hive or other receptacle in which any bees, brood comb, or honey 
shall have been kept, known to be, or have been infected as set out in 
section (a), shall be destroyed immediately and completely by burning. 
Any person who shall be the owner, possessor, or care-taker thereof, who 
refuses or neglects to immediately cause the same to be destroyed, as pro- 
vided herein, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convic- 
tion thereof shall pay a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hun- 
dred dollars, or be imprisoned in jail not more than 30 days for each offense. 

(c) Inspection. — Every person owning or keeping honey bees in this 
state shall cause the same to be inspected at his own expense, at least once 
a year in infected districts. This includes each and every brood or colony 
of bees, brood comb, and honey in his possession or under his control, and 
the procuring of a certificate of such inspection showing the true condi- 
tion of each and every one of the above named articles in his possession 
as to the existence of foul brood or other infections or contagious diseases 
in duplicate, one of which duplicates shall be left with such person, and 
the other filed in the county clerk's office, where such bees or honey or 
brood comb is kept. 

(d) Treatment. — If, upon inspection, the disease of foul brood or other 
disease or infection or contagion shall be found to exist, and the inspector 
shall be of the opinion that, by proper treatment, such disease, contagion 
or infection may be removed, he shall so certify officially in his certificate 
of inspection, and the owner or keeper of such bees shall be entitled to 
keep such bees for the period of six months for treatment; and if not 
eradicated at the expiration of such time, such bees shall be destroyed as 
herein before described; and any person having in possession any brood 
comb, bee hive, honey or apparatus used in connection with bee culture, 
found in like manner to be infected, such person shall be allowed thirty 
days in which to disinfect the same; and if said disinfection shall not have 
been completed at the expiration of thirty days, such brood comb, bee 
hive, honey or apparatus shall be burned as hereinafter provided, 

(e) Penalty. — Every person neglecting or refusing to cause all such 
bees to be duly inspected as provided herein, shall be deemed guilty of a 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 45 

misdemeanor and shall pay a fine of not less than ten nor more than one 
hundred dollars for each offense upon conviction thereof. 

(f) Inspection, Pay. — Upon the application of the Nebraska Bee- 
Keepers' Association, or other person or persons interested in bee culture 
residing in any county of the state, the Governor may appoint a suitable 
resident inspector of bees and honey of said county, whose sworn duty it 
is to inspect all bees, brood comb and honey, within said county, when re- 
quested and shall receive two dollars per day for his services, to be paid 
by the owner, agent, or lessee in whose possession such bees, brood comb 
or honey may be when inspected. Such inspector shall make certificates 
in duplicate as provided in section (c). 



COLORADO. 

(a) Laws of Colorado, approved April 16, 1891, (Laws 1891, p. 41), 
provide for the appointment by the county court, upon application of the 
Colorado Bee-Keepers' Association, or of any five actual bee-keepers resi- 
dent in any county, of a competent, actual bee-keeper, resident of said 
county, to be county inspector of bees. Application shall be based upon 
information and belief that the disease known as foul brood, or any other 
contagious or infectious disease, exists, and must name the actual bee- 
keepers of the county, so far as known to the applicants. 

(b) Oath of Office. — The person so appointed shall within five days, 
file with the Clerk of the Court his acceptance of the office, and the usual 
oath of office. The inspector shall hold office during the pleasure of the 
court and until his successor is appointed and qualified. 

(c) Bee-keepers give Notice of Foul Brood — Penalty. — A bee-keeper or 
other person aware of the existence of foul brood, either in his own apiary 
or elsewhere shall immediately notify the county inspector, if there be one; 
if not, the secretary of the Colorado Bee-Keepers' Association, of the exist- 
ence of such disease, and in default of so doing he shall, on summary con- 
viction before a justice, be liable to a fine of five dollars and costs. 

(d) Duty of Inspector; Owners; Treatment. — On receiving notice from 
any source of the existence of the aforesaid disease, the inspector shall 
forthwith inspect each colony of bees and all hives, implements and ap- 
paratus, honey and supplies used in connection with such apiary, and mark 
those he believes to be infected, and notify the owner or agent thereof and 
the latter shall, within five days, faithfully apply and carry out such treat- 
ment of the diseased colonies as may have been prescribed by the State 
Bee-Keepers' Association for such cases, and thoroughly disinfect, to the 
satisfaction of the inspector, all hives, houses, combs, honey and apparatus 
used in connection with any such diseased colonies; or the owner or agent 
may elect within the same time, to destroy said bees, hives, comb, comb 
houses and apparatus by fire or burial. 

It is the duty of the inspector and his assistants, after inspecting hives 
or fixtures, or handling, diseased bees before leaving the premises and pro- 
ceeding to another apiary, to thoroughly disinfect their person and clothing 

(e) Box Hives — Transfer. — The inspector may, in his discretion, order 
any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box hives in apiaries where the 
disease exists (being mere boxes without frames), to transfer such bees to 
movable-frame hives within a specified time, and, in default of such trans- 
fer, the inspector may destroy or order the destruction of such hives and 
the bees therein. 



46 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

(f) Penalty for Selling Diseased Bees or Infected Appliances. — Any one 
who knowingly sells, barters, or gives away, moves, or allows to be moved, 
a diseased colony or colonies of bees, be they queen or workers, or infected 
appliances, he shall, on conviction before any justice, be liable to a fine 
not less than $50 nor more than $100, or to county jail imprisonment for a 
term not exceeding two months. 

(g) Selling Infected Property: Exposing Infected Things — Penalty. — 
Any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated for foul brood, who 
sells or offers for sale any bees, hives, or appurtenances after such destruc- 
tion or treatment, before being authorized by the inspector to do so, or 
exposes in his bee-yard or elsewhere any infected comb honey or other in- 
fected thing, or conceals the fact that said disease exists among his bees 
shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than $20 nor more than 
$50 or imprisonment in the county jail not less than one nor more than 
two months. 

(h) Disobedience, and Resistance to Inspector — Seizure. — When an 
owner or possessor of bees disobeys the direction of the inspector, or 
offers resistance or obstructs said inspector in his duty, the latter may 
apply to a justice for special constable to proceed with him to the prem- 
ises of such owner, and assist the inspector to seize all the diseased col- 
onies and infected appurtenances, and burn them forthwith, and if nec- 
essary, cause the arrest of the said owner or possessor, and have him 
dealt with according to the provisions of section (g). 

(i) Inspector Must Read or Deliver Copy of Act. — The inspector shall 
read over to such person the provisions of this act, or shall cause a copy 
thereof to be delivered to him, before proceeding against him for its viola- 
tion. 

- (j) Annual Report. — The said inspector shall include in his annual 
report to the president of the Colorado State Bee-Keepers' Association a 
statement of his work during the preceding year, the number of colonies 
inspected, the number diseased, the number destroyed by fire or other- 
wise; the names of the owners, and the localities where found, and the 
amount paid to him for his services and expenses for the year. 

(k) Compensation — Payment by County. — The county inspector of 
bees receives four dollars per day, and two dollars for each half day nec- 
essarily and actually employed, together with his necessary and actual 
expenses while so employed, payable by the county as other claims against 
the county are audited and paid. 



CALIFORNIA. 

(a) County Inspection of Apiaries. — Laws of California (Laws of 1901.. 
Chap. XXIV., Stat. 1901), provide that, upon petition of ten or more resi- 
dent property-holders and possessors of an apiary or place where bees are 
kept, to the board of supervisors of any county, stating that certain or all 
apiaries within the county are infected with the disease known as foul 
brood, or any other disease infectious or contagious, and injurious to bees, 
their eggs, or larvae, that an inspector be appointed by them to super- 
vise the treatment of said bees and apiaries, the said board shall, within 
twenty days, appoint a suitable person, who shall be a skilled bee-keeper, 
inspector of apiaries. Upon petition of a like number of resident prop- 
erty holders and possessor of an apiary, the board may remove said in- 
spector for cause, after a hearing. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 47 

(b) Duties of Inspector. — It shall be the duty of the inspector in 
each county to cause an inspection to be made when he deems it nec- 
essary; and if any foul brood, infectious or contagious disease injurious 
to bees or their eggs or larvae be found, he shall notify the owner or per- 
son in charge of said apiaries or place where bees are kept, and he shall 
require such persons to eradicate and remove such disease or cause of 
contagion within a certain time to be specified. Notice may be served 
by an inspector or by deputy or after the manner of a summons in a civil 
action. Any and all apiaries or places where bees are kept, etc., found 
infected with disease are declared to be a nuisance; and neglect or re- 
fusal of the owner or agent to abate the nuisance within the time spec- 
ified, it shall be the duty of the inspector to abate the same by treatment 
or destroying the infected hives, bees and comb. The expense thereof 
shall be allowed by the board of supervisors, and paid out of the general 
fund of the county. 

(c) Salary. — The salary of the county inspector of apiaries shall be 
three dollars a day when actually engaged in the performance of his duties. 

(d) The act of 1883, approved March 30, providing for inspection of 
apiaries, etc., is hereby repealed. 



UTAH. 



(a) Bee Inspection; Inspector. — Laws of Utah (Rev. Stat. 1898 Sec. 
139 to 143 inclusive) provide for the appointment of the county commis- 
sioners of one or more qualified persons inspectors of bees for their respec- 
tive counties. Such inspectors shall hold office for two years, qualify and 
give bond. No appointment is made except on petition of a majority of 
the-keepers of said county. 

(b) Pay of Inspectors; Tax on Bees. — Inspectors shall be paid out 
of the county treasury for services actually rendered, at such rate per day 
as the board of county commissioners^ may fix. Each colony of bees is 
assessed, and taxed in the same manner as other property is assessed 
and taxed, and collected by the county. 

(c) Duties and Powers of Inspector. — All hives of bees in each county 
shall be carefully inspected at least once each year by a county or dis- 
trict inspector, where such inspector has been appointed; and at any time 
upon complaint that disease exists among the bees of any person, the 
inspector to whom the complaint is made shall immediately inspect the 
bees said to be infected. He shall have authority to take charge and con- 
trol of diseased bees and their hives, and tools and implements used in 
connection therewith for treatment; or to destroy such bees, broods, or 
hives and their contents, or implements, as may be affected. The owner 
may question a decision of the inspector concerning the presence of dis- 
ease, and may appeal to three arbitrators selected from among bee-keepers 
of the county, one each by the owner and inspector, and the third by the 
two chosen, whose decision, concurred in by two of the number, shall be 
conclusive as to the condition of the bees at the time of such examination. 

(d) Obstructing Inspector — Penalty. — Any person who obstructs or 
hinders an inspector in the performance of his duty shall, on conviction 
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined for the first offense 
not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars; and for additional 
offense, any sum not exceeding fifty dollars. 



48 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 



NEW MEXICO. 



CHAPTER 30. — AN ACT relative to the inspection of bees and creating 

the office of inspector of bees. H. B. No. 105; Approved March 16, 

1907. 
Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico: 

Section 1. — Upon the written application, under oath, of any five ac- 
tual bee-keepers, residing in any precinct in this Territory, alleged upon 
information and belief, that the disease known as foul brood, or any other 
contagious or infectious disease, exists among the bees in said precinct, 
cr that infected articles are kept in said precinct, and that there is dan- 
ger that such disease will spread to other apiaries, being made to the 
chairman of the board of . county commissioners of the county in which 
said precinct is located, the said board, appoint some competent, actual 
bee-keeper, residing in said precinct, to be precinct inspector of bees; and 
the applicants shall state, in this application, the names of the actual bee- 
keepers of the precinct, so far as known to them. 

Sec. 2. The person so appointed shall, within five days after his ap- 
pointment, file with the clerk of such board, his written acceptance of the 
office, and the usual oath of office; or, in the default thereof, the board 
shall, in the same manner, make new appointments until the said office is 
filled. The inspector shall hold his office during the pleasure of the board 
and until his successor is appointed and qualified. 

Sec. 3. Every bee-keeper or other person who shall be aware of the 
existence of foul brood, either in his own apiary or elsewhere, shall imme- 
diately notify the inspector of bees, if there be one, of the existence of 
such disease, and in default of so doing shall, on summary conviction be- 
fore a justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of five dollars and costs. 

Sec. 4. On receiving notice from any source of the existence, in any 
apiary in his precinct, of the disease known as foul brood, or any other 
infectious or contagious disease of bees, the inspector of bees shall forth- 
with inspect each colony of bees and all hives, implements and apparatus, 
honey and supplies on hand or used in connection with such apiary, or 
otherwise distinctly designate each colony and apiary which he believes 
infected, and notify the owner or person in charge of said bees thereof, 
in writing or otherwise, and the owners of said bees, or the person in 
charge thereof, in writing or otherwise, and the owners of said bees, or 
the person in charge thereof, shall, within five days thereafter, practically 
and in good faith, apply and thereafter fully and effectually carry out to 
and upon said diseased colonies, such treatment as may have been pre- 
scribed by the inspector for such cases; also thoroughly disinfect to the 
satisfaction of such inspector all hives, bee-houses, combs., honey and 
apparatus that have been used in connection with any such diseased col- 
onies; or, at his election, the said owner or person in charge of such bees 
may, within the same time, utterly and completely destroy said bees, 
house, comb honey, honey and apparatus, by fire, or bury the same in the 
ground, with a covering of not less than two feet of earth. 

Sec. 5. After inspecting infected hives or fixtures, or handling dis- 
eased bees, the inspector shall, before leaving the premises or proceed: 
ing to any other apiary, thoroughly disinfect his own person and cloth- 
ing, and shall see that any assistant or assistants with him have also 
thoroughly disinfected their person and clothing. 

Sec. 6. The inspector shall have full power, in his discretion, to order 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 49 

any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box hives in apiaries where 
the disease exists (being mere boxes without frames) to transfer such 
bees to movable-frame hives within a specific time, and in default of such 
transfer, the inspector may destroy or order the destruction of such box 
hives and the bees dwelling therein. 

Sec. 7. Should the owner or possessor of diseased colonies of bees, 
or any portion of said colonies, be they queens or workers, or of any 
affected appliances of bee-keeping, knowingly sell or barter, or give away, 
or move or allow to be moved, such diseased colonies or portion of col- 
onies, or infected appliances, he shall, on convictinn before any justice of 
the peace, be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more 
than one hundred dollars $100), or to imprisonment in the county jail for 
any term not exceeding two months. 

Sec. 8- Should any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated 
for foul brood sell, or offer for sale, any bees, hives or appurtenances of 
any kind, after such destruction or treatment, and before authorized by 
the inspector to do so, or should he expose, in his bee-yard or elsewhere, 
any infected comb honey, or other infected thing, or conceal the fact that 
such disease exists among his bees, he shall, on conviction before a jus- 
tice of the peace, be liable to a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20) 
nor more than fifty dollars ($50), or to imprisonment in the county jail 
for a term not exceeding two months and not less than one month. 

Sec. 9. When an owner or possessor of bees shall disobey the direc- 
tions of the said inspector, a justice of the peace may, upon the complaint 
of the said inspector, cause a sufficient number of special constables to 
be sworn in and such special constables shall proceed to such owner or 
possessor and assist the inspector to seize all diseased colonies and affect- 
ed appurtenances, and burn them forthwith; and, if necessary, the said 
constables may arrest the said owner or possessor and bring him before 
a justice of the peace to be dealt with according to the provisions of the 
proceeding section of this act. 

Sec. 10. Before proceeding against any person before any justice of 
the peace, the said inspector shall read over to such person the provisions 
of this act or shall cause a copy thereof to be delivered to such person. 

Sec. 11. The said inspector shall include in his annual report to the 
board a statement of his work during the preceding year, which state- 
ment shall include: First, the number of colonies inspected; second, the 
number of colonies diseased; third, the number of colonies destroyed by 
fire or otherwise; fourth, the names of the owners and the localities where 
found; fifth, the amount paid him for his service, and expenses for the 
preceding year. 

Sec. 12. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are here- 
by repealed. 

Sec. 13. In the opinion of the Legislative Assembly an emergency 
exists and this act shall take effect from and after its passage. 



SOUTH DAKOTA. 

CHAPTER 221. 

(S. B. 134) 

AN ACT Entitled: An Act to Prevent Disease Among Bees, and to Pro- 
vide for the Inspection Thereof, 



50 BEE-KEEPERS* LEGAL RIGHTS 

Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota: 

Section 1. That for the purpose of this act state shall be divided into 
two districts. All that part of the state lying east of the Missouri river 
shall be known as District No. 1, and all that portion of the state lying 
west of said river shall be known as District No. 2. On petition of ten or 
more bee-keepers, residents therein, the governor shall appoint for each 
district an inspector of bees, who shall hold his office for a term of two 
years, or until his successor is appointed and qualified; and said inspector 
shall have the power to appoint a deputy. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of such inspector, when notified in writ- 
ing by at least three bee-keepers in any locality, of the existence, or 
suspected existence, of the disease known as foul brood among the apiaries 
of such locality, to at once thoroughly examine such aparies as are re- 
ported to be diseased, and all other apiaries in the same locality, and thus 
ascertain whether such disease exists. If the bees in any apiary are in 
such place or condition as to prevent a thorough examination by the in- 
spector, he may order the same to be put into a proper place or condition 
for such examination. If such order is not complied with, and the in- 
spector has reason for believing such bees to be diseased, he may cause 
them to be destroyed. If upon examination the inspector is satisfied of 
the existence of such disease, he shall give the owner or person in charge 
of such apiary full instructions as to the manner of treating the same. 
Within a reasonable time after such examination the inspector shall, with- 
out other notice, make further examination of such apiaries ,and if the 
condition of any of them is such as his judgment renders it necessary, he 
may burn, or cause to be burned, all the infected colonies of bees in any 
apiary, together with all the combs and hives in order to prevent the fur- 
ther spread of the disease. 

Sec. 3. The inspector shall make a yearly report to the governor stat- 
ing the number of apiaries visited, the number of these diseased and treat- 
ed, and the number of colonies of bees destroyed. Such report shall also 
show the expense incurred by the inspector while in the discharge of his 
duties, under the provisions of this act. 

Sec. 4. Any one who knowingly sells, barters, or gives away, moves 
or allows to be moved, a diseased colony or colonies of bees, be they 
queen or workers; or infected appliances; or who exposes any infected 
honey to bees without the consent of the inspector, shall be deemed guilty 
of a misdemeanor and be liable, on conviction before any justice of the 
peace of the county, to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars, not more 
than one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment in the county jail not exceed- 
ing thirty days. 

Sec. 6. Any owner or possessor of bees who disobeys the direction of 
the inspector, or offers resistance to, or obstructs said inspector in the 
performance of his duty, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on 
conviction thereof before any justice of the peace of the county, shall be 
fined not exceeding the sum of fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the 
county jail not exceeding thirty days. 

Sec. 7. Such inspector shall receive as compensation the sum of three 
dollars per day for each day actually and necessarily employed in the dis- 
charge of his duty as herein provided, together with his expenses actually 
and necessarily incurred while so employed; provided, that the amount to 
be paid on account of such expenses shall in no event exceed the sum of 
three hundred dollars for any one year, 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 51 

Sec. 8. For the purposes of a fund to aid in the inspection of bees 
in this state, and to prevent disease among bees as in this act provided, 
every apiarist or owner of bees shall pay a tax of ten cents for each col- 
ony of bees owned by him in said county on the first day of May of each 
year. 

Sec. 9. An emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this act shall 
be in force and effect from and after its passage and approval. 

Approved March 5, 1909. 



CANADA. 

BILL. 

(No. 223. 1906). 

AN ACT for the Suppression of Foul Brood Among Bees. 

His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative 
Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows: 

Section 1. Short Title. — This act may be known as "The Foul Brood 
Act." 

Sec. 2. Appointment of Inspector of Apiaries. — The lieutenant-gov- 
ernor in council upon the recommendation of the minister of agriculture 
may from time to time appoint one or more inspectors of apiaries to en- 
force this act, and the inspector shall, if so required, produce the certif- 
icate of his appointment on entering upon any premises in the discharge 
of his duties. And the minister shall instruct and control each inspector 
in the carrying out of the provisions of this act. The remuneration to be 
paid to any inspector under this act shall be determined by order of the 
lieutenant-governor in council. 

(In 1 909 fourteen inspectors were appointed, for 24 days each, between 
May 15 and August 15.) 

Sec. 3. Duties of Inspectors. — The inspector shall, whenever so direct- 
ed by the minister of agriculture, visit without necessary delay any local- 
ity in the Province of Ontario and there examine any apiary or apiaries to 
which the said minister may direct him, and ascertain whether or not the 
disease known as foul brood exists in such apiary or apiaries, and wher- 
ever the said inspector is satisfied of the existence of foul brood in its 
virulent or malignant type, it shall be the duty of the inspector to order 
all colonies so affected, together with the hives occupied by them, and the 
contents of such hives, and all tainted appurtenances that cannot be dis- 
infected, to be immediately destroyed by fire under the personal direc- 
tion and superintendence of the said inspector; but where the inspector, 
who shall be the sole judge thereof, is satisfied that the disease exists, 
but only in milder types and in its incipient stages, and is being or may 
be treated successfully, and the inspector has reason to believe that it 
may be entirely cured, then the inspector may, in his discretion, omit to 
destroy or order the destruction of the colonies and hives in which the 
disease exists. 53 V., c. 66, s. 3. 

Sec. 4. Box-hives. — The inspector shall have full power, in his discre- 
tion, to order any owner or possessor of bees dwelling in box-hives, in 
apiaries where the disease exists (being mere boxes without frames), to 
transfer such bees to movable-frame hives within a specified time, and in 
default of such transfer, the inspector may destroy, or order the destruc- 
tion of, such box-hives and the bees dwelling therein. 53 V., c. G6, s. 4. 



52 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

Sec. 5. Penalty for Disposing of Infected Bees or Appliances. — Any 
owner or possessor of diseased colonies of bees, or of any infected ap- 
pliances for bee-keeping, who knowingly sells or barters or gives away 
such diseased colonies or infected appliances shall, on conviction thereof 
before any justice of the peace, be liable to a fine of not less than $50 or 
more than $100, or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two 
months. 53 V., c. 66, s. 5. 

Sec. 6. Selling Bees after Treatment, or Exposing Infected Appliances. 
— Any person whose bees have been destroyed or treated for foul brood, 
who sells or offers for sale any bees, hives or appurtenances of any kind, 
after such destruction or treatment, and before being authorized by the 
inspector so to do, or who exposes in his bee-yard, or elsewhere, any in- 
fected comb honey, or other infected thing, or conceals the fact that said 
disease exists among his bees, shall, on conviction before a justice of the 
peace, *be liable to a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $50, or to 
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months and not less than one 
month. 53 V., c GG, s. 6. 

Sec. 7. Penalty for Obstructing Inspector. — Any owner or possessor 
of bees who refuses to allow the inspector to freely examine said bees or 
the premises in which they are kept, or who refuses to destroy the in- 
fected bees and appurtenances, or to permit them to be destroyed when 
so directed by the inspector, may, on the complaint of the inspector, be 
summoned before a justice of the peace, and, on conviction, shall be liable 
to a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $50 for the first offense, 
and not less than $50 and not more than $100 for the second and any sub- 
sequent offense, and the said justice of the peace shall make an order 
directing the said owner and possessor forthwith to carry out the direc- 
tions of the inspector. 53 V., c. 66, s. 7. 

Sec. 8. Special Constables may be Sworn in to Assist Inspector. — 
Where an owner or possessor of bees disobeys the directions of the said 
inspector, or offers resistance to, or obstructs said inspector, a justice of 
the peace may, upon the complaint of the said inspector, cause a sufficient 
number of special constables to be sworn in, and such special constables 
shall, under the directions of the inspector, proceed to the premises of 
such owner or possesor and assist the inspector to seize all the diseased 
colonies and infected appurtenances and burn them forthwith, and, if nec- 
essary, the said inspector or constables may arrest the said owner or 
possessor and bring him before a justice of the peace to be dealt with 
according to the provisions of the preceding section of this act. 53 V., c. 
66, s. 8. 

Sec. 9. Inspector to Inform Offender of Provisions of Act. — Before pro- 
ceeding against any person before a justice of the peace, the said inspector 
shall read over to such person the provisions of this act or shall cause a 
copy thereof to be deliverd to such person. 53 V., c. GG, s. 9. 

Sec. 10. Person Aware of Disease to Notify Minister. — Every bee- 
keeper or other person who is aware of the existence of foul brood, either 
in his own apiary or elsewhere shall immediately notify the minister of 
the existence of such disease, and in default of so doing shall on sum- 
mary conviction before a justice of the peace be liable to a fine of $5 and 
costs. 53 V., c. 66, s. 10. 

Gal. 11. Inspectors to Report to Minister. — Each inspector shall re- 
port to the minister as to the inspection of any apiary in such form and 
manner as the minister may direct, and all reports shall be filed in the 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION S3 

department of agriculture, and shall be made public as the minister may 
direct or upon order of the legislative assembly. 



WASHINGTON. 

(No. 119). 
Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington: 

Section 1. Whenever a petition is presented to the board of county 
commissioners of any county, signed by ten or more persons, each of whom 
is a property holder resident of the county, and possesor of an apiary or 
place where bees are kept, stating that certain or all apiaries within the 
county are infected with the disease known as foul brood, or any other 
disease which is infectious or contagious in its nature, and injurious to 
the bees, their eggs or larvae, and praying that an inspector by them, 
whose duty it shall be to supervise the treatment of said bees and apiaries 
as herein provided, the board of county commissioners shall, within twenty 
days thereafter, appoint a suitable person, who shall be a skilled bee- 
keeper, inspector of apiaries. The said board of county commissioners 
may remove said inspector at any lime for cause. 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the inspector in each county to cause 
an inspection to be made, when he deems it necessary, of any or every 
apiary, or other place within his jurisdiction in which bees are kept, and 
if found infected with foul brood, or any infectious or contagious disease 
injurious to the bees, or their eggs or larvae, he shall notify the owner 
or owners, person or persons in charge, or in possession of said apiaries 
or places where bees are kept, that the same are infected with foul brood, 
or any other disease infectious or contagious in its nature, ond injurious 
to bees, their eggs or larvae, and he shall require such person or persons 
to eradicate such disease or cause of contagion within a certain time to 
be specified. Said notice may be served upon the person or persons, or 
either of them, owning or having charge, or having possession of such in- 
fected apiaries, or places where bees are kept, by an inspector, or by any 
person deputized by the said inspector for that purpose, or they may be 
served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action. Any and all 
such apiaries, or places where bees are kept, found infected with foul 
brood, or any other infectious or contagious disease, are hereby adjudged 
and declared to be a public nuisance; and when ever any such nuisance 
exist at any place within his jurisdiction, or on the property of any non- 
resident, or on any property the owner or owners of which cannot be 
found by the inspector, after diligent search, within the county, or upon 
the property of any owner or owners upon whom notice aforesaid has 
been served, and who shall refuse or neglect to abate the same within 
the time specified, it shall be the duty of the inspector to abate the same, 
either by treating the disease, or by destroying the infected hives, to- 
gether with their combs and bees therein. The expense thereof shall be 
a county charge and the board of county commissioners shall allow and 
pay the same out of the genral fund of the county. 

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the county inspector of apiaries to 
keep a record of his official acts and doings, and make report thereof to 
the board of county commissioners when required by said board. 

Sec. 4. The salary of the county inspector of apiaries shall be three 
dollars per day when actually engaged in the performance of his duties; 



U BEEKEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

provided, that the expenditures under this act in any county shall not 
exceed the sum of one hundred dollars per annum. 

Sec. 5. The inspector of apiaries may, in his discretion, order the 
owner, or owners, or other person in charge of bees kept in box or other 
immovable or stationary comb-hives in apiaries infected with foul brood 
or other infectious or contagious disease, or within a radius of three miles 
of such diseased apiaries, to transfer such bees to movable-frame hives 
within a reasonable time, to be specified in such order or notice, and in 
default of such transfer the owner, or owners, or other persons in charge 
of such bees, the inspector may destroy, or cause to be destroyed, all such 
hives, together with their contents, and the expense thereof shall be a 
county charge, as provided in section two of this act. 

Sec. G. It shall be unlawful for any person owning or controlling bees 
within this, which are known to be infected with foul brood or other in- 
fectious or contagious disease, to remove said bees to a new location, with- 
out first giving ten days' notice to the county inspector of apiaries, stat- 
ing when and where he intends moving said bees. Any person violating 
the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. 

Sec. 7. Any person or persons whose apiary is infected with foul 
brood or any other infectious or contagious disease, and who sells, or offers 
for sale, from such infected apiary any bees, hives, bee fixtures or appur- 
tenances, or who shall expose in his bee yard or elsewhere, any infected 
comb-honey, bees wax, or other infected thing, or who conceals the fact 
that his apiary is so infected, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. 

Sec. 8. Any person or persons who shall resist, impede, or hinder in 
any way, the inspector of apiaries in the discharge of his duties under the 
provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. 

Sec. 9. An emergency exists and this act shall take effect imme- 
diately. 

February 1, 1905. 



INDIANA BILL. 

(No. 144). 

Section 4. The state entomologist shall be and is hereby constituted 
state inspector of apiaries and as such inspector it shall be his duty to 
aid and assist in the development and protection of the bee and honey 
industry in this state and to adopt and carry out proper measures for the 
prevention and suppression of contagious and infectious diseases among 
bees. 

Sec. 5. The state entomologist shall have full power and authority 
at his discretion to visit and examine any apiaries for the purpose of dis- 
covering whether or not any disease may exist among bees in any part 
of the state. When notified of the existence or the probable existence of 
ifoul brood or other contagious or infectious diseases among bees in any 
apiary in the state he shall visit and examine said apiary so reported and 
all other apiaries in the same neighborhood that he may be informed about 
by diligent inquiry or otherwise, for the purpose of determining whether 
such disease exists or not. Whenever he shall be satisfied of the exist- 
ence of foul brood or other diseases in their malignant form in any apiary 
it shall be his duty to order all colonies so affected, together with all 
hives occupied by them, and the contents of those hives and all tainted 
appurtenances that cannot be disinfected and that might cause the fur- 



National Bee-Keepers Associat ion 

INFORMATION BUREAU No. 15, APRIL 1, 1910 

GREAT DEMAND FOR HONEY 

for hoL h v aVe T d ^° ted f U ^ time t0 Wby S0 many com P ]ain of ™ market 
™ ey ' l have asked fifteen wholesale dealers, why honey sales were 

t:zTX \V? as 7? ready sale at high prices - Also ^ "e? 

Keepers who buy tons of honey besides their own for bottling and also 

Tfl™Z7£n S ? ^ b6 .f t60SiVe h ° neyeaterS wny they hafe dipped 
it from their daily food. Almost every one replies with this answer 

hives fs ,LZ f n T Qd ^ ° ey ' SGaled by the bees and matu ^ in the 
before ft 1 1 rill V^^ ^ *** PriCGS ' But this thin stufl ex tracted 
either fl.vln^l?! 6 * iS WeU n ^ Q ^ h ^ will sour-that never has 
either flavor or body.that is what spoils market for honey. Through In 

lotTl fo° n b , U1 T J had many ° fferS 0f honey *> sel1 ^ -e LverTsach 

had no bod D v T f ° r and lat6r g0t W ° rd f r0m * urchasers the thin honey 
naa no body or flavor, except souring. y 

ALL ™ h™^*™* 1 Bee - kee P ers Association member will promise me 
ALL HIS HONEY WILL BE RIPE, CAPPED OVER HONEY before it 
leaves his hives he will have a market he never can supply! * 

done. ^ ssociation ne ™r can brand its members honey until this is 

To Sell Also To Buy 

tures LortP^i^f 1 ^ ° f ^"k 68 Wh ° WlSh t0 SeU h0ney ' or bees or fix " 

to hfre out to t > T g t0 bUy Same ' A1S ° Parties wh0 want 

t W?™? t0 SOme beeke eper-or parties wanting help in apiarv This 

SSS^S f BUR ^ U ? ValUaWe " -embJ^K c'ost 1 
members nothing for reply as to above. No published lists mailed to all 
members as it would cost $75. each mailing of same. 

Please read 1909 report-page 46-47 and 80-81 two valuable articles 
«hi* f, u Y mem bers get a honey harvest ready for market to be 

able to have new patterns of honey labels special to members. 

Special Prices to Paid up Members:— 
TIN CANS and PAILS 

IS^^a' & ° aSh w i th each or " ( 447 west 14 th st. New York N Y 
»Z *2 A M ^? AN . Can 0o - at 1 135 A dams st. Chicago, 111 
any of the following addresses \ San Francisco, California 

Square cans with If screw. F. O. B. Maywoodlll.. or Cleveland Ohio 
5 ga . in crates of 50 at 21c each or $11.25 per crate San Francisco 
5 gal. in boxes of one each 34c box. 
5 gal. in boxes of two each 60c box or 75c box San Francisco 

hovND 5 gal. round, removable wood jackets, raised head with 3 inch 
screw in center, that drains entire contents, bail handle, 40c each 
or 37i m lots of 100. The can as received is ready for filling also 
ready to ship long distance with honey. I use no other. Try them 
5 gal. round can 3 inch screw, wire link handle, jacket not remov- 
able 30c each. 

FRICTION TOP CANS and PAILS-Maywood, 111. 

2 lb. cans at $2.25 per hundred. 2* lb. at $2.75, 3 lb. at $3.00 
5 lb. pail at $5.00 per 100 10 lb. at $7.00 

FLARING LARD PAIL-Chicago, 111. 

3 lb. at $4.00 per 100. 5 lb at $5.00. 10 lb. at $7.50 

Yours Truly 

N. E. FRANCE. 

DON'T BUY SECOND HAND CANS FOR HONEY. WILL NOT PAY 
TO USE THEM. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 55 

ther spread of the disease to be immediately destroyed by fire under his 
personal supervision and care, but where said entomologist, who shall be 
the sole judge thereof, shall be satisfied that the disease exists in incip- 
ient stages, and is being or may be treated successfully, and he shall have 
reason to believe that it may be entirely cured, then he may in his discre- 
tion omit to destroy or order the destruction of the colonies or hives in 
which the disease exists. 

Whenever the disease shall be found to exist and the treatment for 
the same shall be ordered by the state entomologist, he shall give to the 
owner or person in charge of the apiary instructions as to the manner of 
treatment of such apiary, and to see that such treatment be carried out, 
and should the said owner or person in charge of said apiary refuse or 
fail to carry out the said instructions to the complete satisfaction of the 
state entomologist, he shall destroy or order to be destroyed all said dis- 
eased colonies by fire as provided for in case of disease in its malignant 
form. 

Sec. 6. The state entomologist shall have full power in his discretion 
to order any owner, possessor, or person having charge of bees dwelling 
in box hives (having mere boxes without frames), in apiaries where dis- 
ease exists, to transfer such bees to movable frame hives, within a spec- 
ified time, and in default of such transfer he shall order destroyed or 
destroy all such box hives and the bees dwelling therein. 

Sec. 7. The said state entomologist shall have the right to enter for 
the performance of his duties upon any premiises where bees are kept. 

Sec. 8. The state entomologist shall include in his annual report to 
the governor such information in regard to the work of the apiary in- 
spector and bee culture as he may deem of importance to the state. 

Sec. 9. Any owner of any apiary where disease exists or any person 
or persons, company or corporation who shall sell, barter or give away, or 
import into this state any colonies or colony of bees or appliances infected 
with disease, or expose to the danger of other bees any comb, honey, bee 
hives or appliances or things infected with the disease, or conceal the fact 
that disease exists among his or their bees when disease is known to ex- 
ist, or refuses to allow the state entomologist to inspect or treat any 
apiary or appliances or shall resist hinder or impede him in any way in 
the discharge of his duties under the provisions of this act, shall be guilty 
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less 
than ten ($10) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25). 

Sec. 10. Every bee-keeper or other person who is aware of the exist- 
ence of foul brood or other infectious or contagious diseases either in his 
own apiary or elsewhere, shall immediately notify the state entomologist 
of the existence of such disease, and in default of so doing shall be guilty 
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not more 
than ten dollars ($10). 

Sec. 11. Apiaries within the meaning of this act shall be any place 
where one or more hives, swarm, or colonies of bees shall be kept. 

Sec. 12. Whenever as the result of an official inspection, the state 
entomologist or any of his deputies shall order the treatment or removal 
of any trees, vines, shrubs or plants, or shall order the treatment or 
destruction of any bee hives, frames or other appurtenances connected 
with apiculture he may require that an affidavit shall be filed by the own- 
er or person in charge of the property so affected in which it shall be 
stated that the treatment ordered has been carried out to the best of the 



56 BEE-KEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

affiant's ability, and that the work had been effective for the purpose pre- 
scribed. Any person making any such affidavit, knowing the same to be 
false, shall be guilty of perjury. 

Sec. 13. The state entomologist shall have the authority to employ 
such deputies and assistants as the work of the office may require. They 
shall hold office for such periods of time as the work of the office may re- 
quire and in their appointment the state entomologist shall consider only 
their fitness for the work which they will undertake, disregarding entirely 
all political affiliations. The salary of no deputy shall exceed twelve hun- 
dred dollars ($1200) per annum. The inspector of apiaries shall receive 
for his services the sum of one thousand dollars $1000) per annum in addi- 
tion to his salary as state entomologist. Such compensation to be paid 
out of the general appropriation for this act. 

Sec. 14. Whera, J an emergency exists for the immediate taking effect 
of this act it shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. 
March 12, 1909. 



NATIONAL BEE-KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION 



57 



GENERAL MANAGER N. E. FRANCE. 



The American Bee Journal for February, in giving the new officers of 
the National Bee-Keepers' Association for 1910, has the following sketch 
of the general manager, N. E. France: 

"The subject of this sketch was born July 24, 1857, on the wild prairies- 
of Iowa, having Indians as neighbors. In 1862 his parents moved to Platte- 
ville, Wis., riding all the distance of 230 miles in the fashionable 'auto- 
mobiles' of the time — a covered wagon and ox team — with a cow tied be- 
hind the wagon. * 

"For some years his father, E. France, had bees in boxes, and by 1857" 
had succeeded in having all straight combs by the use of melted wax om 
the underside of the frames without any bottom bars. Later, Langstrothi 
used a frame of wood on all sides. 

"In 1865 to 1885 'N. E,' went to> 
school fall and winter, and was at 
home during the summer on a fruit 
and bee farm. In 1875 he owned his 
first six colonies of bees, which 
gathered a good honey crop, and in 
the fall filled the hives with honey 
dew for winter stores. The next 
spring the bees were all dead, but 
the bee-keeper's hopes were not 
frosted. He bought more bees, built 
up an apiary, and by the fall of 1877 
had 75 colonies. He heard of a ma- 
chine to take the honey out of the 
comb and save the comb. He drove 
forty miles, besides going some miles 
by railroad, to see the first honey- 
extractor. The whole can and sta- 
tionary inside fixtures turned. In 
1878 he extracted 5,120 pounds of 
honey, and as it was work in those 
days to take the honey from the 
combs, it sold for 30 cents per pound,. 
5 cents more than comb honey. 
"Since that time Mr. France has harvested 30,000 to 50,000 pounds of 
honey in a single season. In each of three years he sold a carload in one 
sale. For a number of years he has employed students attending the- 
Normal School at Platteville, to help in caring for his several apiaries. 

"Mr. France has held a number of public positions in bee-keeping as; 
well as in public schools, etc. He served as secretary for two years, 
and as president for four years, of the Southwestern Wisconsin Bee-Keep- 
ers' Association; for seven years as general manager of the National As- 
sociation; and for 13 years as Wisconsin State Inspector of Apiaries. In 
the last two positions he is still serving. 

"Mr. France was principal of the same school for ten years and for 
six years was a student in the State Normal School located at Platteville. 
For four years he was Deputy United States mail carrier, and was super- 




58 BEErKEEPERS' LEGAL RIGHTS 

intendent of the bee and honey display at the Chicago Pure Food Show, 
in which the National Association won the highest award. • 

"There is probably not another man who has done more in a general 
or public way for bee-keeping than has Mr. France; and he has done it all 
at much sacrifice, and so unselfishly. The general managership of the 
National Association means a great deal of work, and for very small pay-. 
But Mr. France has done it all because his big heart was in it. 

"At the Harrisburg convention of the National Association, in 1907, 
a gold watch was presented to Mr. France, and a set of silver spoons to 
Mrs. France, all of which was only a slight token of the esteem in which 
Mr. France and his good wife are held by the bee-keepers of America." 

Members of the National Bee-Keepers' Association must not assume 
any obligations expecting the Association to reimburse them, without first 
getting advice and consent of the General Manager. 



INDEX 



* 

Page 

Alfalfa, Leaf Rust 38 to 40 

Abuse of United States Mails 2 

Arkadelphia, Arkansas; Suit of 9 

Bees and Sound Fruits 27 

Bees and Grapes 28 

Bees and Horticulture 19 to 38 

Bees in Highway 3 

Bees as Pollen Distributors 20-25 

Bees Under Glass 23 

Bees and Squash Bloom 23 

Bees and Berries 25 

City Bee-Keeping 3 

City Bee-Keeping Upheld : 12 to 18 

Display at Fairs ; 29 

Damages 9 

Enticement of Bees 11 

Exempt from Execution , 11 

Flight and Pursuit of Bees 6 

How Recovered 6 

Injury to Person — Property 10 

Pear Blight 34 to 38 

Poison to Destroy Bees 11 

Poison Spraying Laws 30 to 33 

Pollination of Clover 24 

Pollination of Apple, Etc 26 

Nuisance — When — How 7 to 9 

No License ; Selling Honey 18-19 

Stealing Bees 12 

Spotting Clothes — Remedy 3 

Taxes on Bees 18 

Transportation cf Bees 7 

Trespass — When 3 to 9 

Value of Bees to Fruit 22 

Wild by Nature— Bees 7 

Queen Bees by Mail 2 

Foul Brood Laws — 

Wisconsin 40 

New York 41 

Michigan 4i 

Missouri 42 

Nebraska 44 

Colorado 45 

California 46 

Utah 47 

New Mexico 48 

South Dakota 49 

Canada 51 

Washington 53 

Indiana 54 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 841 761 5 



